Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

User:Hamish Ross

Hamish Ross ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Report date January 22 2009, 22:29 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by — Snigbrook

Hamish Ross ( talk · contribs) is indefinitely blocked for vandalism and created hundreds of sockpuppets in 2007 and early 2008, some of these have been used recently. A new account, Hamish Robb ( talk · contribs), has a similar username and has edited the Court usher article, including the restoration of content [1] [2] originally added by Pope Court Usher II ( talk · contribs) [3], Boris Allen ( talk · contribs) [4] and Convicted ( talk · contribs) [5], accounts that were blocked as a result of Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Boris Allen and appear to be sockpuppets of Hamish Ross ( talk · contribs). [6] [7] [8] — Snigbrook 22:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC) reply

I've added the IP 79.79.77.188 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) based on these edits: [9] [10] (similar to this: [11] and other vandalism by User:Hamish Ross sockpuppets. — Snigbrook 22:45, 22 January 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 — Snigbrook 22:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC) reply


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


Conclusions
  •  Confirmed the following:
  1. Mr Gullible ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  2. Hamish Robb ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  3. Maths debator ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

IP blocked. Nishkid64 ( Make articles, not wikidrama) 05:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC) reply

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 It has been archived automatically.



Report date February 8 2009, 22:40 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by — Snigbrook

The account Cp fan ( talk · contribs) was created on 22 November 2007, around the time that many sockpuppets of Hamish Ross ( talk · contribs) were created. The user started editing a few days ago and has tagged a large number of accounts (most already blocked) as socks of User:Hamish Ross (many of the user's blocked accounts had added sock tags to their own talk pages recently). User:Cp fan has also pretended to be an administrator, creating a user page with an {{ administrator}} template and declining an unblock request. At least two currently unblocked accounts were tagged, which were The JPCU ( talk · contribs), created in January 2009 ( this edit and the username make it likely to be a sock), and Computer whizz-kid ( talk · contribs), created in November 2007, who I had already suspected to be a sock and mentioned to an administrator (the account, with no contributions, tried editing from a rangeblocked IP in September 2008, see unblock request and compare that IP's unblock requests around the same time [12] with unblock requests by 194.176.105.40 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS)). User:Cp fan also tagged the IP used by User:Computer whizz-kid as a sock. — Snigbrook 22:40, 8 February 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 — Snigbrook 22:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


Conclusions
  1. Feigning illness ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  2. Schiving off work ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  3. The JPCU ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  4. Failed audit ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  5. No is a very bad ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  6. A Good Influence ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  7. Caution: No excuse ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  8. Question: Are you being served? ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  9. The Lord God Almighty ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  10. Native urdu speaker ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  11. Native pasthun speaker ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  12. Hc baby.jpg ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  13. Thai boyfriend ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  14. TL 4 HB ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  15. RSPCJPS ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  16. Cp fan ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

IPs blocked (one is high volume, so it has been softblocked). Nishkid64 ( Make articles, not wikidrama) 06:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. 
Mayalld (
talk) 07:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
reply
Report date March 4 2009, 21:54 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Mango juice talk

Blatantly obvious sockpuppet, sleeper account registered in November 2007, activated today just after many other sockpuppets were blocked in the previous checkuser request. Listing to check for more sleeper accounts, apparently this one was missed so there may be others. Mango juice talk 21:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Added Joe Taliban ( talk · contribs); see discussion at WP:ANI#40 lashes, Joe Taliban, etc. for further details. Mango juice talk 21:58, 4 March 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 – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by Mango juice talk 21:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC) reply
  •  Clerk endorsed - To check for sleepers. Tiptoety talk 23:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC) reply


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


Conclusions



Report date March 9 2009, 19:30 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Jayron32. talk. contribs


Same MO as prior Hamish Ross/Possum Pint socks: Admin impersonations, incivility, etc. etc. Like earlier Hamish socks, these were all part of the same sock farm, created in November/December 2007. Need to uncover other sleeper socks and block underlying IPs to minimize further disruption. -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 19:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply
Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.
Comments by other users


CheckUser requests
Checkuser request – code letter: A  + B (Arbcom ban/sanction evasion and ongoing serious pattern vandalism)
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by Jayron32. talk. contribs 19:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
IP provisionally blocked, pointing users to ACC and IPBE in the block summary, as there is quite a lot of collateral. I'll try to keep an eye on it causes problems. Dominic· t 20:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply
Conclusions
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.




Report date March 10 2009, 18:24 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by — Snigbrook

These accounts were created between 5pm and 6pm, the first account created user and user talk pages, then made a few edits, enough to become autoconfirmed when the account is old enough. The second account was created a few minutes after, created user and user talk from other users, and reverted a few IP edits, then the third account did the same. The usernames of these two accounts make me think User:Hamish Ross is the most likely sockpuppeteer. All three accounts have user pages based on the user pages of other users ( User:FT2, User:Dominic and User:Od Mishehu). The fourth account was created a few minutes after the third account stopped editing, and has not edited but has a username similar to Uncle Pumbachook ( talk · contribs) who appears to be a sockpuppet of User:Hamish Ross. — Snigbrook 18:24, 10 March 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 — Snigbrook 18:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC) reply


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 Confirmed all four. I'll block the IP. Dominic· t 19:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Conclusions

All the accounts are now blocked with an expiry time of indefinite. -- Kanonkas :  Talk  19:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC) reply

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



Report date April 8 2009, 11:24 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by — Snigbrook

Obvious sockpuppet - account was created in December 2007 with no edits before today, edits include declining unblock requests [13], moving Goth subculture to Goff subculture [14] and vandalism on Nicholas White article [15]. — Snigbrook 11:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC) reply


Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.

--Nothing I can do here from an SPI point of view, as the account is already blocked. I do agree, however, that the behavioural similarities are compelling. Best, PeterSymonds ( talk) 11:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC) reply

 Clerk note: Reblocked indefinitely. PeterSymonds ( talk) 11:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC) reply
Conclusions




Report date April 22 2009, 11:39 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by — Snigbrook

All accounts except the last three are already blocked (most for vandalism on User talk:Zzuuzz or Template:Unblock-auto reviewed). The last three accounts are were created around the same time as the first three accounts listed here, and have user names similar to other socks but have not been used or blocked. IP addresses or range should probably be blocked unless it would affect too many other users. — Snigbrook 11:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC) reply

I've added two new accounts, User:Judge Alan McCusker (username suggest obvious sock) and [[User:Not done enough work really}} (not sure of this one, but similar username to other accounts, similar mistakes in reverting edits by unregistered users, and appears to be aware of speedy deletion policy despite few edits). — Snigbrook 23:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC) reply
Added User:A bad parent - appears to have made edits just to become autoconfirmed. Two other possible accounts, although there isn't any real evidence to connect these, are User:Frisky moose and User:Garden swing. — Snigbrook 00:06, 23 April 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 — Snigbrook 11:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC) reply

 Clerk declined CU on three accounts that haven't even edited, based on creation at a similar time, and vaguely similar usernames. This is way too premature. Mayalld ( talk) 13:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Per Mayalld, I don't think there's going to be any action yet. If the evidence becomes more substantive, feel free to re-open the report. Thanks, PeterSymonds ( talk) 16:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC) reply

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

PeterSymonds ( talk) 16:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC) reply

 Clerk note: Nothing left to do. Archiving. — Jake Wartenberg 17:12, 26 April 2009 (UTC) reply



Report date April 29 2009, 22:55 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by — Snigbrook

The first account, User:Judge Alan McCusker, is already blocked. Others may have been created at the same time, two that look most likely are User:Not done enough work really and User:A bad parent, both have made enough edits to be autoconfirmed and neither appear to be new users. User:Polunin Capital and User:Pompous and arrogant were both created today, and have make apparently random reverts, again to make just enough edits (something recent User:Hamish Ross sockpuppets have done), User:DW805366597GB is an SPA that also made just enough edits, all in the gap before the next likely account, User:The diplomatic service, which is more obviously a sockpuppet (see user page). The edits by User:Rene the co-tenant start after the last account finished, are also disruptive and don't look like a new user, as the user has been adding test4 templates to user pages and undoing edits apparently at random. — Snigbrook 22:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Also User:Overbearing tactics - obvious sock, all edits are vandalism. — Snigbrook 09:08, 30 April 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 – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by — Snigbrook 22:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC) reply

 Clerk endorsed to confirm that these are indeed socks of this user, and to look for any possible range blocks. Mayalld ( talk) 06:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 Additional information needed Looks good for the most part, but please give some evidence in the form of specific diffs. Thanks, — Jake Wartenberg 03:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC) reply

 Likely these accounts all represent one person. I don't know much about Hamish Ross, but he is usually on a different ISP in the same area; this may very well be him too, though. Unfortunately, a range block isn't really feasible at this point. Dominic· t 10:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC) reply

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

Blocked and tagged. PeterSymonds ( talk) 10:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC) reply



Report date July 9 2009, 13:43 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by Snigbrook

Two new accounts with ten edits each. User:Walrus theory has been trolling/vandalising with nonsense about people who resemble walruses, this is similar to User:Asian Parents, Western Upbringing/Walruses which was created by a sockpuppet probably of User:Hamish Ross (I've tagged that page for speedy deletion as it probably meets the criteria for attack pages). The account User:Bald patch made a few minor edits to articles (one of the edits was vandalism), then created user and talk pages copied from User:Jpgordon which is similar to what User:Hamish Ross sockpuppets have done before. snigbrook ( talk) 13:43, 9 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 snigbrook ( talk) 13:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC) reply


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 Clerk endorsed Seddσn talk| WikimediaUK 16:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Conclusions
Good instinct. The following are  Confirmed matches for each other:
  1. Bald patch ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  2. Willy of Versaille ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  3. The man in the mirror ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  4. Only a mother could love ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  5. Nay sir Phillips ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  6. Not a candidate ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  7. Mister Ross ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  8. Walrus theory ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
No obvious sockmaster, but probably not worth taking a longer look either. Worth noting one user was named "Mister Ross". All of the accounts I've just listed are now blocked. – Luna Santin ( talk) 21:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC) reply
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.




Report date October 28 2009, 20:55 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Snigbrook

All IP addresses listed have been used for vandalism on several user talk pages. When User talk:BigDunc was semi-protected, some accounts, which had been inactive since they were created all on the same day in 2008, made several disruptive minor edits to articles, and two of them – MP Clan ( talk · contribs) and Darff Vader ( talk · contribs) – vandalised User talk:BigDunc and have now been blocked. snigbrook ( talk) 20:55, 28 October 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 – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by snigbrook ( talk) 20:55, 28 October 2009 (UTC) reply
  •  Clerk endorsed NW ( Talk) 21:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Conclusions
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.


15 January 2012
Suspected sockpuppets

Hamish Ross, at it again with his failed attempts at humorous trolling. These are all blocked already. I realize we can't block all the IPs in Britain, but one of his past practices was to create sleeper accounts, so please check for these. NawlinWiki ( talk) 02:50, 15 January 2012 (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
01 July 2012
Suspected sockpuppets


The user is clearly a sock of a major sockpuppeteer, as is clear by the name and by the user's only edit. He claims that he has "already amassed a sizeable armada of sockpuppet accounts". I have blocked the account in accordance with the sockmaster's own block, but I think that we need the IP address to be checked and probably blocked. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:42, 1 July 2012 (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
  • CheckUser isn't helpful, but judging from his intentions he'll be easy to whack on appearance. WilliamH ( talk) 13:57, 1 July 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Tagged. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 17:55, 1 July 2012 (UTC) reply
01 July 2012
Suspected sockpuppets

This has been moved from an SPI on CUTKD. Firstly EggCentric has suspicions that CUTKD is another sock puppet of the famous Hamish Ross (I am sure EG will comment soon). Then we have the IP's, the IP addresses have been sending me abuse for the last week (although this is now sorted out and they are blocked). What I suspect is happening is that the account CUTKD is being used to cover up the actions of Hamish Ross by framing other people by using the same word and phrases that other users have used. Also I have found that the IP's edit in the same time periods (7am -8am and 5pm to 11pm BST) as CUTKD which could link them together. Previously Hamish Ross said they had an 'armada' of sock puppets waiting, this could be some of it. We can see how CUTKD is framing people for example Griffith-Jones' message here and then an 2 IP addresses say the exact same thing: here and here. URGENT: Here an IP admits to being a sock puppet of CUTKD (may be someone else trying to frame them), and as I said it is after 5pm. Also since my user page is semi protected due to this they are clearly now using Egg Centric's talk page to send nasty notes. To anyone reviewing this, I would also consider the possibility that someone is trying to frame CUTKD and although the evidence stacks up, I don't fully believe this user is connected to hamish as they have been editing constructively (moslty) for the last 3 years. Thєíríshwαrdєn - írísh αnd prσud ( talk) 16:34, 19 July 2012 (UTC) reply

I no longer want to persue this case as I believe that CUTDK is no sockpuppet or sockpuppeteer. Thєíríshwαrdєn - írísh αnd prσud ( talk) 20:46, 19 July 2012 (UTC) reply

The IP's seem to send similar messages as the previous sockpuppets of Hamish Ross, the newer ones keep saying horrible little shit. On a second note I wanted to close it initially due to my belief CUTKD is innocent( nit sure anymore) the IP's are definitely connected to Hamish Ross Thєíríshwαrdєn - írísh αnd prσud ( talk) 07:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Well this needs to be sorted out as I've been get abuse messages for the last week. Look at my and EggCentric's talk page history full of harassment by these IP's. Second I put in CUTKD as an IP said they were a sock of them, then I tried to delete this as I knew it could be framing. Look at EggCentric's deleted post in here. Thєíríshwαrdєn - írísh αnd prσud ( talk) 07:47, 20 July 2012 (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

As the editor who filed this report has withdrawn the request for review I see no reason why it can't be closed and archived. -- Jezebel'sPonyo bons mots 22:00, 19 July 2012 (UTC) reply

  • Allright; this is an unmitigated mess. Clearly, there is someone who is – or who is pretending to be – Hamish Ross. Not counting the numerous IPs trolling, CUTKD ( talk · contribs) is a  Likely match to Hamysh Ross ( talk · contribs) and/or much of the IP trolling; and there is more than a little funny business going on those ranges and having technical matches.

    That said, the closing admin really should pay attention to the history of this page and the relevant users' talk pages: there is more going here than straight up puppetting, and figuring out what is going on is going to require some investigation. Behaviour here has been puzzling, and could stand a closer look. —  Coren  (talk) 22:06, 19 July 2012 (UTC) reply

This is unfortunate. Please would anyone concerned contact me by email. Thanks, C.U.T.K.D T | C 19:16, 20 July 2012 (UTC) reply

24 December 2016

Suspected sockpuppets

On User talk:Sro23, TheGracefulSlick believes that Zzuuzz has found Hamish Ross to be the sockmaster behind all the socking on User talk:TheGracefulSlick that is forcing the page to be extended-confirmed protected. The IP posted on User talk:Floquenbeam that it was counting down the days until the talk page would be unprotected, but is now indefinitely 30-500-protected. Requesting CU to see where all these accounts are coming from. — MRD2014 ( Merry Christmas!) 14:25, 24 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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

  • I'll make a brief comment, though the Hamish Ross account is well stale, range blocks have not usually been practical, and most evidence resides somewhere in Wiki-memory (I would have to look quite hard). Hamish Ross has traditionally been UK-based, and traditionally used BT's huge ranges to vandalise from. More recently he has been known to edit from Hong Kong ( eg), Canada, and various proxies. He has always had a habit of 'bigging up' his vandalism, including obsessive behaviour, particular html-tag formatting, and extensive warnings and threats at talk pages and ANI. [16] Maybe someone will trawl the recent TP vandalisers to find a match, but this is long term and I'm convinced. To hand, there's also this and this. I'm not sure what a checkuser would look for, but a UK base (and especially BT, if he's not been thrown off it) would be persuasive. -- zzuuzz (talk) 14:58, 24 December 2016 (UTC) reply
  • I just wanted to see if it all coming from one place with the CU request. — MRD2014 ( Merry Christmas!) 15:03, 24 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  •  In progress - Katie talk 16:17, 24 December 2016 (UTC) reply
  • These accounts are  Confirmed to each other:
  • I think that's all. Not sure who the master is - pinging DoRD, Samwalton9 to take a look, but based on geolocation this could be Hamish Ross. DoRD, I'd appreciate it if you'd run this again to make sure I got all of them and to look at the range. All already blocked without tags, and regardless of master I think it should stay that way. Katie talk 16:56, 24 December 2016 (UTC) reply
    • That looks like all of the accounts for now, but I'd like to mention that the IP address in the report above is Red X Unrelated to these accounts. The obsession with TheGracefulSlick makes me think that CrazyAces is the master. I disagree about the geolocation match with Hamish Ross, because unless there's something I'm overlooking, these socks are operating from a significantly different location than where Hamish was a few years ago. On the other hand, they're also in a different location, but relatively close, compared to Hamish, than the last known CA socks. ​— DoRD ( talk)​ 16:17, 27 December 2016 (UTC) reply
  •  Clerk note: Wasn't it initially suspected that the culprit was CrazyAces489? GAB gab 17:41, 24 December 2016 (UTC) reply
So I gather, but were found to be unrelated at this SPI. Just noting, regardless of geolocation, many of these confirmed accounts speak with a distinctly British twang. Posting massive pictures of Jimbo, that's another Ross habit ( "Jimbo lovin troll") [17]. This IP (revdel'd) also shares similarites with some IPs I linked above, who share similarities with the talk page harasser. Compare some of these edits [18] [19] [20] [21] [22]. Me, I'm still persuaded it's Ross. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:26, 24 December 2016 (UTC) reply
You know much better than this humble clerk ever would - carry on. GAB gab 18:31, 24 December 2016 (UTC) reply

30 December 2017

Suspected sockpuppets

Behaviorally obvious, disrupting ANI, giving fake warnings. Need a sleeper check. Of course there may be a known LTA involved, but I don’t know who. —/ Mendaliv/ 2¢/ Δ's/ 01:42, 30 December 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

Hipsterish beard is  Confirmed. Dianna Connelly is Red X Unrelated.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 03:35, 30 December 2017 (UTC) reply

This is probably Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hamish Ross. Pinging Zzuuzz. Sro23 ( talk) 04:04, 30 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Other checkusers may find this strange, but yes I believe this is Hamish Ross. Also, the several other socks involved in this vandalism. -- zzuuzz (talk) 10:11, 30 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Sro and zz: After the last Hamish case, very little surprises me anymore, so I'll gladly defer to your judgement. However, as Bbb said, Dianna appears to be technically unrelated to the other two. But again, I wouldn't be surprised if they're all the same. ​— DoRD ( talk)​ 14:22, 30 December 2017 (UTC) reply


01 January 2018

Suspected sockpuppets

A bunch of throwaway socks used to disrupt ANI (listed here are some from today and some who started editing on December 29 and one from December 31), including building some up to autoconfirmed status. ANI has been extended protected several times because of the socking. Requesting CU because it seems like there are lots of sleepers, which were all created a while ago. — MRD2014  Talk 20:13, 1 January 2018 (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

  • Closing. CU would not be helpful as the accounts are too old. Please report to AIV instead. Sro23 ( talk) 20:24, 1 January 2018 (UTC) reply

02 January 2019

Suspected sockpuppets

Nuddsy is a perfect CU match for Pteridactyl, and Dodged is operating with the same machinery but from a slightly different IP address; can't place a rangeblock. Need help with two things: 1. this may be an LTA, given their targets; 2. one of you may be able to figure something about the IP addresses. They're all blocked; nothing is tagged yet. Pinging User:Matthew hk, whose suspicions were confirmed. Thanks. Drmies ( talk) 23:08, 2 January 2019 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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

Well, i had tagged for may be a dozen to 2 dozen accounts under User:Nuddddddsy (as i don't know before this account there is many), as well as i don't even bother to check which sleeper account is the oldest. Matthew hk ( talk) 23:10, 2 January 2019 (UTC) reply
NinjaRobotPirate, you checked User:Lords Lords money and User:At the other end of the pole earlier. Matthew hk, please list the accounts you tagged. Thanks, Drmies ( talk) 23:16, 2 January 2019 (UTC) reply
I don't have a list but a cat. It generated from inspecting page history of WP:ANI, viewing those with red link user page and posting [n]-day of Xmas and/or undo. 2 accounts were omitted as their edits were hidden. Matthew hk ( talk) 23:18, 2 January 2019 (UTC) reply
Well, only two accounts had edited in the article namespace, Mark Zuckerberg's official account (certainly a sock block material already) and Kippering, which Kippering sending a level 3 warning to Dopethizzi, an account without edit at all. Matthew hk ( talk) 23:30, 2 January 2019 (UTC) reply
Well the sockmaster has started his 10th day. Add Antonie Ralston for the same vandal pattern in ANI. Matthew hk ( talk) 18:54, 3 January 2019 (UTC) reply

I'm surprised nobody has semi-protected ANI for the 12 days yet; it's obvious how long this will last. Do you think that would stop this, or would they just move somewhere else? ansh 666 21:26, 3 January 2019 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

If you're looking for an opinion on identification, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hamish Ross/Archive - incidentally last filed this time last year. Also, User:Kippering is something of an outlier of this lot - either a copycat or mixed up in some other way (but not to be confused with being innocent). -- zzuuzz (talk) 05:58, 3 January 2019 (UTC) reply

  • I blocked some of these but I have no insight as to who is the actual master. I also don't think it really matters - the vandalism is very obvious, just WP:RBI and CUs can refresh the range blocks when appropriate. Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 18:55, 3 January 2019 (UTC) reply
@ Ansh666: why protect ANI? The vandal is blowing through their sleeper collection as fast as we can block them. And yes, I do believe they'd just post elsewhere. Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 13:04, 4 January 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Clerk, when ready please merge to Hamish Ross instead of archiving here. -- zzuuzz (talk) 13:12, 4 January 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Merged and re-tagged. Closing. Vanjagenije (talk) 17:49, 7 January 2019 (UTC) reply

28 January 2021

Suspected sockpuppets


Hedgehog officer was edit warring and making personal attacks at Merrill. One example is: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Merrill_(company)&oldid=1003424184. After they were blocked, the listed sock was reactivated to restore one of the HQ edits. Shiny bonjour. 23:01, 28 January 2021 (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

  • Both accounts have already been blocked, and the CU log indicates that they both have already been checked. Closing. Mz7 ( talk) 23:25, 28 January 2021 (UTC) reply

01 February 2021

Suspected sockpuppets

More socks at Merrill (company) with the same personal attacks. Please check for sleepers - they appear to have invested time in creating socks and running what appears to be an automated script to get them to 10 edits. Pahunkat ( talk) 19:14, 1 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. I swear I didn't know.... Shiny bonjour. 19:23, 1 February 2021 (UTC) reply

  • I've put Merrill (company) under ECP because of the ability to get round semi-protection. I've deleted the pages they created as part of this. Those accounts were all created in 2016 which seems like a long time for a sleeper so I wonder if they're guessing the passwords of dormant accounts instead. Hut 8.5 19:33, 1 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  •  Likely. Same country, geolocation, (very wide) IP range. Same common user agent. ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 21:45, 1 February 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Closing per the above. All blocked, nothing further to do here. TheSandDoctor Talk 22:50, 1 February 2021 (UTC) reply

14 March 2021

Suspected sockpuppets

On Merrill (company), same edits and provocative edit summaries. WP:DUCK Pahunkat ( talk) 11:33, 14 March 2021 (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. Also, just noting my opinion that this is surely Hamish Ross. -- zzuuzz (talk) 13:12, 14 March 2021 (UTC) reply

21 March 2021

Suspected sockpuppets

Per Zzuuzz's comment the last time I filed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hedgehog officer, filing here instead. An account created in 2016 that suddenly comes back to life, restoring the paragraph added by socks of Hedgehog officer/Hamish Ross. Pahunkat ( talk) 13:48, 21 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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

Blocked. Can this be closed and the other case merged? Pahunkat ( talk) 15:09, 21 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Pahunkat, The cases have indeed been merged. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:10, 21 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

03 January 2022

Suspected sockpuppets

Another revert bomb like User:Aroha Parish. Need I say more than that? CU for rangeblocks and/or sleepers. Mako001  (C)   (T) (The Alternate Mako) 14:43, 3 January 2022 (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

Yes, that's Hamish Ross. The other account:

I may tag these accounts for undisclosed reasons, but generally there's no need for them. -- zzuuzz (talk) 15:03, 3 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Thank you zzuuzz. Drmies ( talk) 00:58, 4 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • zzuuzz, here's another one for you: User talk:Mr Nicholas Need of East Locution. Please check and see what to do about that range? Drmies ( talk) 01:06, 4 January 2022 (UTC) reply

05 April 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

Distruptively editing pages and leaving edit summaries on other talk pages, abusively using the uw-vandalism4 template. See user contribs and edit summaries for evidence. Wesoree ( Talk) 13:10, 5 April 2023 (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

05 April 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

posted above on previous section Wesoree ( Talk) 14:41, 5 April 2023 (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 April 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

These accounts are already blocked and tagged. The pattern is obvious. They are all old accounts but started editing only recently. They create the same userpage. They make a bunch of test edits in their userspace. They start reverting editors willy-nilly. I'm filing this only for a check for other accounts. Bbb23 ( talk) 22:55, 19 April 2023 (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

Min-Seo O'Connor ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Sofya Gerstle ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki) etc.
 Clerk endorsed if these haven't been checked already. Thanks, Spicy ( talk) 23:03, 19 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • I guess so, yes. It's up to the clerks though :) I'll flag one down in case someone wants to do that. -- zzuuzz (talk) 13:13, 20 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • I've merged the case and deleted the existing tags. (I don't think we've been tagging these, but if another clerk/admin wants to do so, I have no objection). Closing. Thanks, Spicy ( talk) 19:42, 20 April 2023 (UTC) reply

21 April 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

Literally posting personal attacks on user talk pages, CU requested for sleeper checks, as I think there may be more sleepers there. Evidence can be explained via contribs. -- Wesoree ( talk· contribs) 13:28, 21 April 2023 (UTC) reply

aditionally WP:HOUNDING me, and some other editors. -- Wesoree ( talk· contribs) 13:29, 21 April 2023 (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

This is Hamish Ross, who probably has a spreadsheet full of spare accounts. CU is obviously aware, but there's not much we can do to find sleepers which are 7 years old. Over to the clerks. -- zzuuzz (talk) 14:10, 21 April 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Case merged. With the accounts already blocked, no further action is required here. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 15:47, 21 April 2023 (UTC) reply

05 March 2024

Suspected sockpuppets

A whole bunch of accounts created in 2016-2017 have suddenly started spamming garbage on admin noticeboards. Most recent (as of while I'm typing this) now is https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1211926495 otherwise just read the page history. Checkuser asked for in case there are more sleepers out there. Daveosaurus ( talk) 07:40, 5 March 2024 (UTC) reply

And User:70 tiger sharks. Daveosaurus ( talk) 09:18, 5 March 2024 (UTC) reply


Comments by other users

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

 Comment: There isn't much of a point to this, they've been doing it for a few days now( diff, other diff). A report just to tag them would be unnecessary for an LTA, maybe even discouraged, and checkusers have likely already checked them seeing that a few of the LTA blocks that have been done were by checkusers. – 2804:F14:80C2:4F01:BD62:EF68:43A3:3A61 ( talk) 08:10, 5 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Just to clarify, I don't mean Kinu's blocks, I meant other blocks. – 2804:F14:80C2:4F01:BD62:EF68:43A3:3A61 ( talk) 08:15, 5 March 2024 (UTC) reply
There does seem to be a correlation between the accounts (All 2016/2017) so I'll guess LTA made these on a similar IP range, and that they have several other accounts in reserve. ASmallMapleLeaf ( talk) 08:37, 5 March 2024 (UTC) reply

User:Goodbye Mrs Merton another account. ASmallMapleLeaf ( talk) 08:47, 5 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • Anything else I saw was already blocked. Spicy ( talk) 10:22, 5 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  •  Blocked without tags, closing. Spicy ( talk) 10:25, 5 March 2024 (UTC) reply

10 March 2024

Suspected sockpuppets

Pro forma, as Pasi Palmisano was just blocked. Same pattern of reverting (mostly) helpful edits, leaving incorrect warnings, old sleeper accounts.

CU requested for sleeper check. Schrödinger's jellyfish  ✉ 21:08, 10 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Pinging @ Yamla here as the blocker. (Thank you for blocking so quickly!) Schrödinger's jellyfish  ✉ 21:09, 10 March 2024 (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

  • No additional sleepers at this time. -- Yamla ( talk) 21:10, 10 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Hamish_Ross/Archive&oldid=1213217294"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

User:Hamish Ross

Hamish Ross ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Report date January 22 2009, 22:29 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by — Snigbrook

Hamish Ross ( talk · contribs) is indefinitely blocked for vandalism and created hundreds of sockpuppets in 2007 and early 2008, some of these have been used recently. A new account, Hamish Robb ( talk · contribs), has a similar username and has edited the Court usher article, including the restoration of content [1] [2] originally added by Pope Court Usher II ( talk · contribs) [3], Boris Allen ( talk · contribs) [4] and Convicted ( talk · contribs) [5], accounts that were blocked as a result of Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Boris Allen and appear to be sockpuppets of Hamish Ross ( talk · contribs). [6] [7] [8] — Snigbrook 22:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC) reply

I've added the IP 79.79.77.188 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) based on these edits: [9] [10] (similar to this: [11] and other vandalism by User:Hamish Ross sockpuppets. — Snigbrook 22:45, 22 January 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 — Snigbrook 22:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC) reply


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


Conclusions
  •  Confirmed the following:
  1. Mr Gullible ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  2. Hamish Robb ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  3. Maths debator ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

IP blocked. Nishkid64 ( Make articles, not wikidrama) 05:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC) reply

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



Report date February 8 2009, 22:40 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by — Snigbrook

The account Cp fan ( talk · contribs) was created on 22 November 2007, around the time that many sockpuppets of Hamish Ross ( talk · contribs) were created. The user started editing a few days ago and has tagged a large number of accounts (most already blocked) as socks of User:Hamish Ross (many of the user's blocked accounts had added sock tags to their own talk pages recently). User:Cp fan has also pretended to be an administrator, creating a user page with an {{ administrator}} template and declining an unblock request. At least two currently unblocked accounts were tagged, which were The JPCU ( talk · contribs), created in January 2009 ( this edit and the username make it likely to be a sock), and Computer whizz-kid ( talk · contribs), created in November 2007, who I had already suspected to be a sock and mentioned to an administrator (the account, with no contributions, tried editing from a rangeblocked IP in September 2008, see unblock request and compare that IP's unblock requests around the same time [12] with unblock requests by 194.176.105.40 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS)). User:Cp fan also tagged the IP used by User:Computer whizz-kid as a sock. — Snigbrook 22:40, 8 February 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 — Snigbrook 22:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


Conclusions
  1. Feigning illness ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  2. Schiving off work ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  3. The JPCU ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  4. Failed audit ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  5. No is a very bad ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  6. A Good Influence ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  7. Caution: No excuse ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  8. Question: Are you being served? ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  9. The Lord God Almighty ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  10. Native urdu speaker ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  11. Native pasthun speaker ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  12. Hc baby.jpg ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  13. Thai boyfriend ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  14. TL 4 HB ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  15. RSPCJPS ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  16. Cp fan ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

IPs blocked (one is high volume, so it has been softblocked). Nishkid64 ( Make articles, not wikidrama) 06:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. 
Mayalld (
talk) 07:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
reply
Report date March 4 2009, 21:54 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Mango juice talk

Blatantly obvious sockpuppet, sleeper account registered in November 2007, activated today just after many other sockpuppets were blocked in the previous checkuser request. Listing to check for more sleeper accounts, apparently this one was missed so there may be others. Mango juice talk 21:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Added Joe Taliban ( talk · contribs); see discussion at WP:ANI#40 lashes, Joe Taliban, etc. for further details. Mango juice talk 21:58, 4 March 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 – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by Mango juice talk 21:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC) reply
  •  Clerk endorsed - To check for sleepers. Tiptoety talk 23:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC) reply


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


Conclusions



Report date March 9 2009, 19:30 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Jayron32. talk. contribs


Same MO as prior Hamish Ross/Possum Pint socks: Admin impersonations, incivility, etc. etc. Like earlier Hamish socks, these were all part of the same sock farm, created in November/December 2007. Need to uncover other sleeper socks and block underlying IPs to minimize further disruption. -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 19:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply
Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.
Comments by other users


CheckUser requests
Checkuser request – code letter: A  + B (Arbcom ban/sanction evasion and ongoing serious pattern vandalism)
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by Jayron32. talk. contribs 19:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
IP provisionally blocked, pointing users to ACC and IPBE in the block summary, as there is quite a lot of collateral. I'll try to keep an eye on it causes problems. Dominic· t 20:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply
Conclusions
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.




Report date March 10 2009, 18:24 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by — Snigbrook

These accounts were created between 5pm and 6pm, the first account created user and user talk pages, then made a few edits, enough to become autoconfirmed when the account is old enough. The second account was created a few minutes after, created user and user talk from other users, and reverted a few IP edits, then the third account did the same. The usernames of these two accounts make me think User:Hamish Ross is the most likely sockpuppeteer. All three accounts have user pages based on the user pages of other users ( User:FT2, User:Dominic and User:Od Mishehu). The fourth account was created a few minutes after the third account stopped editing, and has not edited but has a username similar to Uncle Pumbachook ( talk · contribs) who appears to be a sockpuppet of User:Hamish Ross. — Snigbrook 18:24, 10 March 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 — Snigbrook 18:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC) reply


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 Confirmed all four. I'll block the IP. Dominic· t 19:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Conclusions

All the accounts are now blocked with an expiry time of indefinite. -- Kanonkas :  Talk  19:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC) reply

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



Report date April 8 2009, 11:24 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by — Snigbrook

Obvious sockpuppet - account was created in December 2007 with no edits before today, edits include declining unblock requests [13], moving Goth subculture to Goff subculture [14] and vandalism on Nicholas White article [15]. — Snigbrook 11:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC) reply


Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.

--Nothing I can do here from an SPI point of view, as the account is already blocked. I do agree, however, that the behavioural similarities are compelling. Best, PeterSymonds ( talk) 11:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC) reply

 Clerk note: Reblocked indefinitely. PeterSymonds ( talk) 11:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC) reply
Conclusions




Report date April 22 2009, 11:39 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by — Snigbrook

All accounts except the last three are already blocked (most for vandalism on User talk:Zzuuzz or Template:Unblock-auto reviewed). The last three accounts are were created around the same time as the first three accounts listed here, and have user names similar to other socks but have not been used or blocked. IP addresses or range should probably be blocked unless it would affect too many other users. — Snigbrook 11:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC) reply

I've added two new accounts, User:Judge Alan McCusker (username suggest obvious sock) and [[User:Not done enough work really}} (not sure of this one, but similar username to other accounts, similar mistakes in reverting edits by unregistered users, and appears to be aware of speedy deletion policy despite few edits). — Snigbrook 23:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC) reply
Added User:A bad parent - appears to have made edits just to become autoconfirmed. Two other possible accounts, although there isn't any real evidence to connect these, are User:Frisky moose and User:Garden swing. — Snigbrook 00:06, 23 April 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 — Snigbrook 11:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC) reply

 Clerk declined CU on three accounts that haven't even edited, based on creation at a similar time, and vaguely similar usernames. This is way too premature. Mayalld ( talk) 13:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Per Mayalld, I don't think there's going to be any action yet. If the evidence becomes more substantive, feel free to re-open the report. Thanks, PeterSymonds ( talk) 16:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC) reply

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

PeterSymonds ( talk) 16:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC) reply

 Clerk note: Nothing left to do. Archiving. — Jake Wartenberg 17:12, 26 April 2009 (UTC) reply



Report date April 29 2009, 22:55 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by — Snigbrook

The first account, User:Judge Alan McCusker, is already blocked. Others may have been created at the same time, two that look most likely are User:Not done enough work really and User:A bad parent, both have made enough edits to be autoconfirmed and neither appear to be new users. User:Polunin Capital and User:Pompous and arrogant were both created today, and have make apparently random reverts, again to make just enough edits (something recent User:Hamish Ross sockpuppets have done), User:DW805366597GB is an SPA that also made just enough edits, all in the gap before the next likely account, User:The diplomatic service, which is more obviously a sockpuppet (see user page). The edits by User:Rene the co-tenant start after the last account finished, are also disruptive and don't look like a new user, as the user has been adding test4 templates to user pages and undoing edits apparently at random. — Snigbrook 22:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Also User:Overbearing tactics - obvious sock, all edits are vandalism. — Snigbrook 09:08, 30 April 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 – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by — Snigbrook 22:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC) reply

 Clerk endorsed to confirm that these are indeed socks of this user, and to look for any possible range blocks. Mayalld ( talk) 06:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 Additional information needed Looks good for the most part, but please give some evidence in the form of specific diffs. Thanks, — Jake Wartenberg 03:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC) reply

 Likely these accounts all represent one person. I don't know much about Hamish Ross, but he is usually on a different ISP in the same area; this may very well be him too, though. Unfortunately, a range block isn't really feasible at this point. Dominic· t 10:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC) reply

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

Blocked and tagged. PeterSymonds ( talk) 10:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC) reply



Report date July 9 2009, 13:43 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by Snigbrook

Two new accounts with ten edits each. User:Walrus theory has been trolling/vandalising with nonsense about people who resemble walruses, this is similar to User:Asian Parents, Western Upbringing/Walruses which was created by a sockpuppet probably of User:Hamish Ross (I've tagged that page for speedy deletion as it probably meets the criteria for attack pages). The account User:Bald patch made a few minor edits to articles (one of the edits was vandalism), then created user and talk pages copied from User:Jpgordon which is similar to what User:Hamish Ross sockpuppets have done before. snigbrook ( talk) 13:43, 9 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 snigbrook ( talk) 13:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC) reply


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 Clerk endorsed Seddσn talk| WikimediaUK 16:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Conclusions
Good instinct. The following are  Confirmed matches for each other:
  1. Bald patch ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  2. Willy of Versaille ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  3. The man in the mirror ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  4. Only a mother could love ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  5. Nay sir Phillips ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  6. Not a candidate ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  7. Mister Ross ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  8. Walrus theory ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
No obvious sockmaster, but probably not worth taking a longer look either. Worth noting one user was named "Mister Ross". All of the accounts I've just listed are now blocked. – Luna Santin ( talk) 21:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC) reply
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.




Report date October 28 2009, 20:55 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Snigbrook

All IP addresses listed have been used for vandalism on several user talk pages. When User talk:BigDunc was semi-protected, some accounts, which had been inactive since they were created all on the same day in 2008, made several disruptive minor edits to articles, and two of them – MP Clan ( talk · contribs) and Darff Vader ( talk · contribs) – vandalised User talk:BigDunc and have now been blocked. snigbrook ( talk) 20:55, 28 October 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 – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by snigbrook ( talk) 20:55, 28 October 2009 (UTC) reply
  •  Clerk endorsed NW ( Talk) 21:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Conclusions
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.


15 January 2012
Suspected sockpuppets

Hamish Ross, at it again with his failed attempts at humorous trolling. These are all blocked already. I realize we can't block all the IPs in Britain, but one of his past practices was to create sleeper accounts, so please check for these. NawlinWiki ( talk) 02:50, 15 January 2012 (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
01 July 2012
Suspected sockpuppets


The user is clearly a sock of a major sockpuppeteer, as is clear by the name and by the user's only edit. He claims that he has "already amassed a sizeable armada of sockpuppet accounts". I have blocked the account in accordance with the sockmaster's own block, but I think that we need the IP address to be checked and probably blocked. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:42, 1 July 2012 (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
  • CheckUser isn't helpful, but judging from his intentions he'll be easy to whack on appearance. WilliamH ( talk) 13:57, 1 July 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Tagged. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 17:55, 1 July 2012 (UTC) reply
01 July 2012
Suspected sockpuppets

This has been moved from an SPI on CUTKD. Firstly EggCentric has suspicions that CUTKD is another sock puppet of the famous Hamish Ross (I am sure EG will comment soon). Then we have the IP's, the IP addresses have been sending me abuse for the last week (although this is now sorted out and they are blocked). What I suspect is happening is that the account CUTKD is being used to cover up the actions of Hamish Ross by framing other people by using the same word and phrases that other users have used. Also I have found that the IP's edit in the same time periods (7am -8am and 5pm to 11pm BST) as CUTKD which could link them together. Previously Hamish Ross said they had an 'armada' of sock puppets waiting, this could be some of it. We can see how CUTKD is framing people for example Griffith-Jones' message here and then an 2 IP addresses say the exact same thing: here and here. URGENT: Here an IP admits to being a sock puppet of CUTKD (may be someone else trying to frame them), and as I said it is after 5pm. Also since my user page is semi protected due to this they are clearly now using Egg Centric's talk page to send nasty notes. To anyone reviewing this, I would also consider the possibility that someone is trying to frame CUTKD and although the evidence stacks up, I don't fully believe this user is connected to hamish as they have been editing constructively (moslty) for the last 3 years. Thєíríshwαrdєn - írísh αnd prσud ( talk) 16:34, 19 July 2012 (UTC) reply

I no longer want to persue this case as I believe that CUTDK is no sockpuppet or sockpuppeteer. Thєíríshwαrdєn - írísh αnd prσud ( talk) 20:46, 19 July 2012 (UTC) reply

The IP's seem to send similar messages as the previous sockpuppets of Hamish Ross, the newer ones keep saying horrible little shit. On a second note I wanted to close it initially due to my belief CUTKD is innocent( nit sure anymore) the IP's are definitely connected to Hamish Ross Thєíríshwαrdєn - írísh αnd prσud ( talk) 07:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Well this needs to be sorted out as I've been get abuse messages for the last week. Look at my and EggCentric's talk page history full of harassment by these IP's. Second I put in CUTKD as an IP said they were a sock of them, then I tried to delete this as I knew it could be framing. Look at EggCentric's deleted post in here. Thєíríshwαrdєn - írísh αnd prσud ( talk) 07:47, 20 July 2012 (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

As the editor who filed this report has withdrawn the request for review I see no reason why it can't be closed and archived. -- Jezebel'sPonyo bons mots 22:00, 19 July 2012 (UTC) reply

  • Allright; this is an unmitigated mess. Clearly, there is someone who is – or who is pretending to be – Hamish Ross. Not counting the numerous IPs trolling, CUTKD ( talk · contribs) is a  Likely match to Hamysh Ross ( talk · contribs) and/or much of the IP trolling; and there is more than a little funny business going on those ranges and having technical matches.

    That said, the closing admin really should pay attention to the history of this page and the relevant users' talk pages: there is more going here than straight up puppetting, and figuring out what is going on is going to require some investigation. Behaviour here has been puzzling, and could stand a closer look. —  Coren  (talk) 22:06, 19 July 2012 (UTC) reply

This is unfortunate. Please would anyone concerned contact me by email. Thanks, C.U.T.K.D T | C 19:16, 20 July 2012 (UTC) reply

24 December 2016

Suspected sockpuppets

On User talk:Sro23, TheGracefulSlick believes that Zzuuzz has found Hamish Ross to be the sockmaster behind all the socking on User talk:TheGracefulSlick that is forcing the page to be extended-confirmed protected. The IP posted on User talk:Floquenbeam that it was counting down the days until the talk page would be unprotected, but is now indefinitely 30-500-protected. Requesting CU to see where all these accounts are coming from. — MRD2014 ( Merry Christmas!) 14:25, 24 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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

  • I'll make a brief comment, though the Hamish Ross account is well stale, range blocks have not usually been practical, and most evidence resides somewhere in Wiki-memory (I would have to look quite hard). Hamish Ross has traditionally been UK-based, and traditionally used BT's huge ranges to vandalise from. More recently he has been known to edit from Hong Kong ( eg), Canada, and various proxies. He has always had a habit of 'bigging up' his vandalism, including obsessive behaviour, particular html-tag formatting, and extensive warnings and threats at talk pages and ANI. [16] Maybe someone will trawl the recent TP vandalisers to find a match, but this is long term and I'm convinced. To hand, there's also this and this. I'm not sure what a checkuser would look for, but a UK base (and especially BT, if he's not been thrown off it) would be persuasive. -- zzuuzz (talk) 14:58, 24 December 2016 (UTC) reply
  • I just wanted to see if it all coming from one place with the CU request. — MRD2014 ( Merry Christmas!) 15:03, 24 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  •  In progress - Katie talk 16:17, 24 December 2016 (UTC) reply
  • These accounts are  Confirmed to each other:
  • I think that's all. Not sure who the master is - pinging DoRD, Samwalton9 to take a look, but based on geolocation this could be Hamish Ross. DoRD, I'd appreciate it if you'd run this again to make sure I got all of them and to look at the range. All already blocked without tags, and regardless of master I think it should stay that way. Katie talk 16:56, 24 December 2016 (UTC) reply
    • That looks like all of the accounts for now, but I'd like to mention that the IP address in the report above is Red X Unrelated to these accounts. The obsession with TheGracefulSlick makes me think that CrazyAces is the master. I disagree about the geolocation match with Hamish Ross, because unless there's something I'm overlooking, these socks are operating from a significantly different location than where Hamish was a few years ago. On the other hand, they're also in a different location, but relatively close, compared to Hamish, than the last known CA socks. ​— DoRD ( talk)​ 16:17, 27 December 2016 (UTC) reply
  •  Clerk note: Wasn't it initially suspected that the culprit was CrazyAces489? GAB gab 17:41, 24 December 2016 (UTC) reply
So I gather, but were found to be unrelated at this SPI. Just noting, regardless of geolocation, many of these confirmed accounts speak with a distinctly British twang. Posting massive pictures of Jimbo, that's another Ross habit ( "Jimbo lovin troll") [17]. This IP (revdel'd) also shares similarites with some IPs I linked above, who share similarities with the talk page harasser. Compare some of these edits [18] [19] [20] [21] [22]. Me, I'm still persuaded it's Ross. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:26, 24 December 2016 (UTC) reply
You know much better than this humble clerk ever would - carry on. GAB gab 18:31, 24 December 2016 (UTC) reply

30 December 2017

Suspected sockpuppets

Behaviorally obvious, disrupting ANI, giving fake warnings. Need a sleeper check. Of course there may be a known LTA involved, but I don’t know who. —/ Mendaliv/ 2¢/ Δ's/ 01:42, 30 December 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

Hipsterish beard is  Confirmed. Dianna Connelly is Red X Unrelated.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 03:35, 30 December 2017 (UTC) reply

This is probably Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hamish Ross. Pinging Zzuuzz. Sro23 ( talk) 04:04, 30 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Other checkusers may find this strange, but yes I believe this is Hamish Ross. Also, the several other socks involved in this vandalism. -- zzuuzz (talk) 10:11, 30 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Sro and zz: After the last Hamish case, very little surprises me anymore, so I'll gladly defer to your judgement. However, as Bbb said, Dianna appears to be technically unrelated to the other two. But again, I wouldn't be surprised if they're all the same. ​— DoRD ( talk)​ 14:22, 30 December 2017 (UTC) reply


01 January 2018

Suspected sockpuppets

A bunch of throwaway socks used to disrupt ANI (listed here are some from today and some who started editing on December 29 and one from December 31), including building some up to autoconfirmed status. ANI has been extended protected several times because of the socking. Requesting CU because it seems like there are lots of sleepers, which were all created a while ago. — MRD2014  Talk 20:13, 1 January 2018 (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

  • Closing. CU would not be helpful as the accounts are too old. Please report to AIV instead. Sro23 ( talk) 20:24, 1 January 2018 (UTC) reply

02 January 2019

Suspected sockpuppets

Nuddsy is a perfect CU match for Pteridactyl, and Dodged is operating with the same machinery but from a slightly different IP address; can't place a rangeblock. Need help with two things: 1. this may be an LTA, given their targets; 2. one of you may be able to figure something about the IP addresses. They're all blocked; nothing is tagged yet. Pinging User:Matthew hk, whose suspicions were confirmed. Thanks. Drmies ( talk) 23:08, 2 January 2019 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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

Well, i had tagged for may be a dozen to 2 dozen accounts under User:Nuddddddsy (as i don't know before this account there is many), as well as i don't even bother to check which sleeper account is the oldest. Matthew hk ( talk) 23:10, 2 January 2019 (UTC) reply
NinjaRobotPirate, you checked User:Lords Lords money and User:At the other end of the pole earlier. Matthew hk, please list the accounts you tagged. Thanks, Drmies ( talk) 23:16, 2 January 2019 (UTC) reply
I don't have a list but a cat. It generated from inspecting page history of WP:ANI, viewing those with red link user page and posting [n]-day of Xmas and/or undo. 2 accounts were omitted as their edits were hidden. Matthew hk ( talk) 23:18, 2 January 2019 (UTC) reply
Well, only two accounts had edited in the article namespace, Mark Zuckerberg's official account (certainly a sock block material already) and Kippering, which Kippering sending a level 3 warning to Dopethizzi, an account without edit at all. Matthew hk ( talk) 23:30, 2 January 2019 (UTC) reply
Well the sockmaster has started his 10th day. Add Antonie Ralston for the same vandal pattern in ANI. Matthew hk ( talk) 18:54, 3 January 2019 (UTC) reply

I'm surprised nobody has semi-protected ANI for the 12 days yet; it's obvious how long this will last. Do you think that would stop this, or would they just move somewhere else? ansh 666 21:26, 3 January 2019 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

If you're looking for an opinion on identification, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hamish Ross/Archive - incidentally last filed this time last year. Also, User:Kippering is something of an outlier of this lot - either a copycat or mixed up in some other way (but not to be confused with being innocent). -- zzuuzz (talk) 05:58, 3 January 2019 (UTC) reply

  • I blocked some of these but I have no insight as to who is the actual master. I also don't think it really matters - the vandalism is very obvious, just WP:RBI and CUs can refresh the range blocks when appropriate. Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 18:55, 3 January 2019 (UTC) reply
@ Ansh666: why protect ANI? The vandal is blowing through their sleeper collection as fast as we can block them. And yes, I do believe they'd just post elsewhere. Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 13:04, 4 January 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Clerk, when ready please merge to Hamish Ross instead of archiving here. -- zzuuzz (talk) 13:12, 4 January 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Merged and re-tagged. Closing. Vanjagenije (talk) 17:49, 7 January 2019 (UTC) reply

28 January 2021

Suspected sockpuppets


Hedgehog officer was edit warring and making personal attacks at Merrill. One example is: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Merrill_(company)&oldid=1003424184. After they were blocked, the listed sock was reactivated to restore one of the HQ edits. Shiny bonjour. 23:01, 28 January 2021 (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

  • Both accounts have already been blocked, and the CU log indicates that they both have already been checked. Closing. Mz7 ( talk) 23:25, 28 January 2021 (UTC) reply

01 February 2021

Suspected sockpuppets

More socks at Merrill (company) with the same personal attacks. Please check for sleepers - they appear to have invested time in creating socks and running what appears to be an automated script to get them to 10 edits. Pahunkat ( talk) 19:14, 1 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. I swear I didn't know.... Shiny bonjour. 19:23, 1 February 2021 (UTC) reply

  • I've put Merrill (company) under ECP because of the ability to get round semi-protection. I've deleted the pages they created as part of this. Those accounts were all created in 2016 which seems like a long time for a sleeper so I wonder if they're guessing the passwords of dormant accounts instead. Hut 8.5 19:33, 1 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  •  Likely. Same country, geolocation, (very wide) IP range. Same common user agent. ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 21:45, 1 February 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Closing per the above. All blocked, nothing further to do here. TheSandDoctor Talk 22:50, 1 February 2021 (UTC) reply

14 March 2021

Suspected sockpuppets

On Merrill (company), same edits and provocative edit summaries. WP:DUCK Pahunkat ( talk) 11:33, 14 March 2021 (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. Also, just noting my opinion that this is surely Hamish Ross. -- zzuuzz (talk) 13:12, 14 March 2021 (UTC) reply

21 March 2021

Suspected sockpuppets

Per Zzuuzz's comment the last time I filed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hedgehog officer, filing here instead. An account created in 2016 that suddenly comes back to life, restoring the paragraph added by socks of Hedgehog officer/Hamish Ross. Pahunkat ( talk) 13:48, 21 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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

Blocked. Can this be closed and the other case merged? Pahunkat ( talk) 15:09, 21 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Pahunkat, The cases have indeed been merged. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:10, 21 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

03 January 2022

Suspected sockpuppets

Another revert bomb like User:Aroha Parish. Need I say more than that? CU for rangeblocks and/or sleepers. Mako001  (C)   (T) (The Alternate Mako) 14:43, 3 January 2022 (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

Yes, that's Hamish Ross. The other account:

I may tag these accounts for undisclosed reasons, but generally there's no need for them. -- zzuuzz (talk) 15:03, 3 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Thank you zzuuzz. Drmies ( talk) 00:58, 4 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • zzuuzz, here's another one for you: User talk:Mr Nicholas Need of East Locution. Please check and see what to do about that range? Drmies ( talk) 01:06, 4 January 2022 (UTC) reply

05 April 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

Distruptively editing pages and leaving edit summaries on other talk pages, abusively using the uw-vandalism4 template. See user contribs and edit summaries for evidence. Wesoree ( Talk) 13:10, 5 April 2023 (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

05 April 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

posted above on previous section Wesoree ( Talk) 14:41, 5 April 2023 (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 April 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

These accounts are already blocked and tagged. The pattern is obvious. They are all old accounts but started editing only recently. They create the same userpage. They make a bunch of test edits in their userspace. They start reverting editors willy-nilly. I'm filing this only for a check for other accounts. Bbb23 ( talk) 22:55, 19 April 2023 (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

Min-Seo O'Connor ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Sofya Gerstle ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki) etc.
 Clerk endorsed if these haven't been checked already. Thanks, Spicy ( talk) 23:03, 19 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • I guess so, yes. It's up to the clerks though :) I'll flag one down in case someone wants to do that. -- zzuuzz (talk) 13:13, 20 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • I've merged the case and deleted the existing tags. (I don't think we've been tagging these, but if another clerk/admin wants to do so, I have no objection). Closing. Thanks, Spicy ( talk) 19:42, 20 April 2023 (UTC) reply

21 April 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

Literally posting personal attacks on user talk pages, CU requested for sleeper checks, as I think there may be more sleepers there. Evidence can be explained via contribs. -- Wesoree ( talk· contribs) 13:28, 21 April 2023 (UTC) reply

aditionally WP:HOUNDING me, and some other editors. -- Wesoree ( talk· contribs) 13:29, 21 April 2023 (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

This is Hamish Ross, who probably has a spreadsheet full of spare accounts. CU is obviously aware, but there's not much we can do to find sleepers which are 7 years old. Over to the clerks. -- zzuuzz (talk) 14:10, 21 April 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Case merged. With the accounts already blocked, no further action is required here. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 15:47, 21 April 2023 (UTC) reply

05 March 2024

Suspected sockpuppets

A whole bunch of accounts created in 2016-2017 have suddenly started spamming garbage on admin noticeboards. Most recent (as of while I'm typing this) now is https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1211926495 otherwise just read the page history. Checkuser asked for in case there are more sleepers out there. Daveosaurus ( talk) 07:40, 5 March 2024 (UTC) reply

And User:70 tiger sharks. Daveosaurus ( talk) 09:18, 5 March 2024 (UTC) reply


Comments by other users

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

 Comment: There isn't much of a point to this, they've been doing it for a few days now( diff, other diff). A report just to tag them would be unnecessary for an LTA, maybe even discouraged, and checkusers have likely already checked them seeing that a few of the LTA blocks that have been done were by checkusers. – 2804:F14:80C2:4F01:BD62:EF68:43A3:3A61 ( talk) 08:10, 5 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Just to clarify, I don't mean Kinu's blocks, I meant other blocks. – 2804:F14:80C2:4F01:BD62:EF68:43A3:3A61 ( talk) 08:15, 5 March 2024 (UTC) reply
There does seem to be a correlation between the accounts (All 2016/2017) so I'll guess LTA made these on a similar IP range, and that they have several other accounts in reserve. ASmallMapleLeaf ( talk) 08:37, 5 March 2024 (UTC) reply

User:Goodbye Mrs Merton another account. ASmallMapleLeaf ( talk) 08:47, 5 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • Anything else I saw was already blocked. Spicy ( talk) 10:22, 5 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  •  Blocked without tags, closing. Spicy ( talk) 10:25, 5 March 2024 (UTC) reply

10 March 2024

Suspected sockpuppets

Pro forma, as Pasi Palmisano was just blocked. Same pattern of reverting (mostly) helpful edits, leaving incorrect warnings, old sleeper accounts.

CU requested for sleeper check. Schrödinger's jellyfish  ✉ 21:08, 10 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Pinging @ Yamla here as the blocker. (Thank you for blocking so quickly!) Schrödinger's jellyfish  ✉ 21:09, 10 March 2024 (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

  • No additional sleepers at this time. -- Yamla ( talk) 21:10, 10 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Hamish_Ross/Archive&oldid=1213217294"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE