Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cyntiamaspian/Archive

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.


Cyntiamaspian

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

14 August 2015

Suspected sockpuppets


AgustinusHal, who's first edit was on 7th Feb 2015 (2 weeks after Cyntiamaspian was blocked), waited until 17 July to make their next edit, but since has made multiple edits clearly linked to the Cyntiamaspian or Ghazlan-airplanes accounts - see this [1] for instance which seems to have been copy-pasted from User talk:Cyntiamaspian, and was intended as a response to YSSYguy reverting one of AgustinusHal's edits to the Boeing Business Jet article (an article heavily edited by both Cyntiamaspian and AgustinusHal). Or this [2] with an edit summary "Undid revision 70210040 by Davejohnsan due to retaliatory edits" which restored an edit first made by Ghazlan-airplanes. AgustinusHal also posted an invalid 'vandalism' warning at User talk:Tafeax [3] which linked to an edit made by User:Bitchecordova. Like AgustinusHal, Cyntiamaspian has also edited the Indonesian-language Wikipedia. All three accounts seem to concentrate almost exclusively on airport and aircraft-related topics. All three seem to have received regular warnings for adding false information to articles, or in the case of AgustinusHal for posting inappropriate warnings on user talk pages. The User:AgustinusHal page had a false 'administrator' category intentionally placed on it [4] (now removed), which makes me suspect that the AgustinusHal account is intended as some sort of tool for intimidation - see also the ANI thread on Cyntiamaspian [5] which led to a block for amongst other things, impersonating an administrator. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:13, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

I noticed that this user below is also interested in aviation:

He also tried to do a bogus RFA as seen here. Note that "Bitchecordova" also jumps the username blacklist. Racer-Ωmegα 07:49, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • He too did false warnings. Racer-Ωmegα 07:51, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The user hesitates to reveal their previous accounts even though they claim to have 50,000 edits on another account, which I inquired about bluntly, but they just dismiss my whole question, a classical response. Esquivalience t 15:30, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Evidence is kind of circumstantial, but is relevant to this case: attempted administrator impersonation, [6][7][8]; interest in airplanes and airports (see contribs), deception (Nrwairport claimed that they had 50,000 edits on a previous account, never before he filed their RfA, in an attempt to deceive voters into giving them adminship, see Special:Permalink/676406910 and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Nrwairport) consistent with Cyntiamaspian et al., and apparently some experience (but not at the level of 50,000 edits) with Wikipedia at the start: [9]. Esquivalience t 15:44, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm wondering if they should be blocked in the meantime; IMO they are doing harm to the encyclopedia. They are continuing to tag articles inappropriately and issue warnings. In one recent case they tagged an article for CSD inappropriately,[10], gave an inappropriate "final warning" to the author, and reported the author to AIV![11] Recent tags have seemed random or even nonsensical, such as tagging these articles as "not English" [12] [13] --MelanieN (talk) 17:17, 17 August 2015 (UTC) P.S. I'm holding off for now, only because they are not actively tagging as we speak. If they resume their disruptive tagging I think they should be stopped. --MelanieN (talk) 18:15, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've been monitoring this editor since I closed their RFA. I don't believe this editor falls under WP:NOTHERE but rather WP:CLUE. They've been substantially warned at this point so if they resume editing in a disruptive way, I think the community will need to step in. Mkdwtalk 23:40, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have already left a message on their tp. The tagging is indeed extremely arbitrary - almost like blind clicking at things on the Curation Toolbar. This should be able to be dealt with possibly per WP:NOTHERE without a lengthy ANI, but I do think we need to get that CU first before we do anything physical. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:23, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've put the users' contributions' timestamps through a program, and according to the results, Cyntiamaspian, AgustinusHal, and Ghazlan-airplanes match almost perfectly (they all go to sleep at 14:00 to 15:00 UTC). Bitchecordova is possible, but it is not controlled between 12:00 to 22:00 UTC. Nrwairport does not match those users' timezone, so I reckon that s/he is not in this sockfarm, but in another (there are other sockfarms that like to impersonate admins; for example, I believe there is one that actually wrote a script to fake admin actions). Esquivalience t 19:14, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
While I can see cause for concern regarding Nrwairport's editing history, I think it is unlikely that there is any connection to Cyntiamaspian and the other accounts I originally listed. Nrwairport seems to be much more fluent in English, and doesn't seem to have made the same elementary errors that the accounts I named did. On behavioural grounds, I'd be surprised if they are the same person. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:00, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Even if Nrwairport is not socking, they should still be blocked on WP:NOTHERE grounds - impersonation of being an admin, lying to get adminship, and hostile responses when asked about their "50,000 edit account that they forgot the password to" is just pure social engineering. Esquivalience t 19:48, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly - but unless Nrwairport is a sock of one of the other accounts named, it has nothing to do with the subject of this SPI. I suggest that you raise the matter elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:56, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was probably the first one to try to connect Nrwairport with Cyntiamaspian and AgustinusHal based on some early similar behavior right after AH was blocked, including reverting User:YSSYguy's edits without cause, unwarranted warnings to YSSY and other users, and falsely claiming to be an admin on their user page. But since then, his behavior has diverged. At this point ANI is probably the best option, and I would suggest making him reveal his previous accounts, to an admin in private if he wants, as precondition to being unblocked. Based on their behavior to this point, it's likely that they were a problem user, and may even be under an active block. If they have really been around for 6 years, someone will eventually recognize the puppetmaster account. - BilCat (talk) 01:45, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • FWIW, at the ANI, Nrwairport was blocked indefinitely for disruptive editing and NOTHERE. --MelanieN (talk) 15:19, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Guerillero: you say that Sandboxtester44 is ' is a Confirmed sleeper' - of which account? THis SPA has become confused, because it appears to me at least to be dealing with two different people - Cyntiamaspian and his/her socks, and Nrwairport. If you are saying that Sandboxtester44 is a sock of Cyntiamaspian, I'm clearly wrong (Sandboxtester44 seems much more competent than Cyntiamaspian). If you are saying that Sandboxtester44 is a Nrwairport sock, it still leaves the actual intended purpose of this SPI unresolved - we need to check Cyntiamaspian against the three accounts I listed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:56, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@AndyTheGrump: A CU has been run on the others (see below). Esquivalience t 05:12, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • For what it is worth, the only similarity I can see between the edits of Ghazlan-airplanes and those of AgustinusHal and AyuLestri9, is a few misleading edit summaries. Apart from that, Ghazlan's edit history looks very different to the others', including the Master. YSSYguy (talk) 22:59, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

I think we need that CU and a check for sleepers.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:07, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I second that a CU here may be required. Mkdwtalk 23:38, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I ran a check and

--Guerillero | Parlez Moi 03:41, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Second batch of CUs

There were no smoking gun sleepers becuse the ranges used are so busy --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 04:02, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

information Administrator note All confirmed/likely accounts blocked and tagged or already blocked. Mkdwtalk 11:12, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]


21 August 2015

Suspected sockpuppets


Blocked the user on duck evidence, claims to be an administrator and other behaviours as previous accounts, including returning to the same article Boeing Business Jet as User:AgustinusHal and having a thing for User:YSSYguy. Just need to check if they are any sleepers. MilborneOne (talk) 20:46, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

This is clearly an experienced User, not a newbie. S/he has made eleven edits to her/his own Talk page and sub-pages before making this edit to the Boeing Business Jet article, in which this 'new' User has gone to the trouble of creating a false edit summary. I have been through the BBJ article's edit history, and I did not change that figure - AgustinusHal did that on 24 July this year. I have also been through my User contributions and I did not make an edit with Revision number 676323188 anywhere on WP. This edit to my own Talk page on 16 August is Revision Number 676314549; my next edit was eight hours later, Revision Number 676358042. The BBJ article was not edited on 16 August, so there is no Revision Number 676323188 in its edit history. AgustinusHal was also in the habit of making highly misleading edit summaries, see here, here and here. This User, AgustinusHal and the sockmaster are all Indonesian. YSSYguy (talk) 22:43, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

30 August 2015

Suspected sockpuppets


Blocked the user on DUCK evidence, claims to be administrator as previous accounts and adds name to Wikipedia:List of administrators/Active. As before seems to have a thing about User:YSSYguy as they keep returning to his talk page. Names mentioned on user page common with other accounts. MilborneOne (talk) 13:51, 30 August 2015 (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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Cyntiamaspian/Archive&oldid=1138669078"