Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/F1F2F2/Archive

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.


F1F2F2

F1F2F2 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

13 July 2017

Suspected sockpuppets

Similar editing pattern. Make 10 minor edits to random article, turn user and talk page blue. Then one writes an article on a barely notable company and the other, using most of the same sources, writes one on the founder. Suspect a rogue paid editing operation. Furrykiller (talk) 10:27, 13 July 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

I can confirm that McHoyel and MarianBGalu are the same. I'll see what I have on the others. - Bilby (talk) 18:14, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This case is being reviewed by Sro23 as part of the clerk training process. Please allow them to process the entire case without interference, and pose any questions or concerns either on their Talk page or on this page if more appropriate.

  • Pink clock Awaiting administrative action This is not Azul411; I can't see someone who hates spam with that much passion ever becoming a paid COI editor themself. BusInCordoba appears to be the master here: each sock will make around 10 minor edits, create a user/user talk page, and then create a stub or two on a non-notable company. Please block the non-stale accounts (QuentinHotel and McHoyel). Sro23 (talk) 23:35, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Sro23:  Done. GABgab 03:01, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

27 July 2017

Suspected sockpuppets

Editing pattern very similar to that of the identified socks.

Almost all of the articles created using the named accounts were subsequently edited by unregistered users. Their edit summaries (or, in a few cases, the fact that they edited multiple articles created by different accounts) suggest that the IPs were used by the same person.

I also have suspicions with regards to User:Bitzonetick, but its connection to the group is an inconclusive combination of a weak behavioural link and weak off-wiki evidence.

-- Rentier (talk) 17:53, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

  • Drmies or another CU, could we have an update on this case? I don't mean to rush, but InnReiMor (his article was matched to an Upwork job) is about to get stale (last activity is 89 days old) and so may other, not yet known accounts. Rentier (talk) 16:03, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Y'all, this is so much that I need more coffee. Rentier, I blocked every single one of the accounts from the last (stale) batch--by which I mean those below the IPs----every single one except for CoffeeHoot, which does not really meet the usual characteristics. I'll tell you two things I found: a. they play good hand-bad hand: this IP warns a sock (Interloop) about our EL policy. b. one of the articles, Stephan Crasneanscki, goes back a long way--see a short list of blocked editors at User_talk:Bellaheureuse#Blocked. More later. Drmies (talk) 13:23, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • I ran a quick CU just to see how big this got, and it's a bit bigger than I can handle. AngelaGrossman certainly links to ComerBien, who links to JoelRomedo (talk · contribs), who links to ArenysDep and two not-yet active accounts, BonJay44 and JeanSilvaLus, as well as to LiamYazz (talk · contribs). I am somewhat hesitant to start throwing blocks around since I don't feel I have the bigger picture, and I am wondering if there are good hand/bad hand accounts or perhaps an innocent user caught up in this. RubenPsy (talk · contribs) also needs to be added to this list, and I invite editors to look at RenaultMurnles (talk · contribs). I did block ArenysDep and the associated JoeyGranieri (talk · contribs), and the associated NewCrossG (talk · contribs). OK, this is getting kind of exciting, but still too big for me right now. Drmies (talk) 12:46, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  In progress - This may take me a while, but I'm working on it. Katietalk 18:50, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Going to do this in small pieces but it looks like a giant sockfarm. They're using a couple of different ISPs and I really can't tell how they're doing it because it's weird, but still.  Confirmed to each other so far are:
  • Blocked awaiting tags when I get a better handle on it. G5 away, guys.  Clerk assistance requested: Would you look at the other accounts that Drmies linked and see if they need to be added, and add them if they do? Thanks. :-) Katietalk 19:32, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • More confirmed to each other and the first group:
  • Again, blocked awaiting tags. I think these are true shared accounts being used by multiple users in multiple locations. Katietalk 20:16, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • These are all confirmed to the others I've listed above:
  • RenaultMurnles (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) is  Likely but I want someone to carefully look at the behavior.
  • All named accounts listed in the report after the block of IP addresses are  Stale.
  • no No comment with respect to IP address(es).
  • Now that I know what to look for, I reran the non-stale socks from the archive, and I can confirm MarianBGalu to the group. McHoyel is  Likely.
  • Blocked awaiting tags. I'm not sure the master is BusInCordoba but apparently it's the best match. If I missed one, ping me. I've made a page in my user space on the CU wiki with technical details. Katietalk 01:21, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Katie RenaultMurnles had popped up on my radar before as a newbie apparently cleaning up COI. More recently, though they've made more typical UPE edits e.g. these at UNILAD which essentially are part of a re-branding exercise (the last edit was by an IP, 7 minutes after RenaultMurnles). Similarly this AFD nom would fit the MO of reputation management. Looking at the edits that first caught my eye at Scott Jacoby (producer), it also seems suspicious that they removed {{coi}} only a 10 days after the disclosed paid editor Davykamanzi had removed it. Seems like enough reason to block IMO. SmartSE (talk) 13:54, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • SmartSE, the link with the IP is interesting but I won't comment. CU confirms a link between Renault and various other socks, including NewCrossG and ArenysDep, both of whom are CU-blocked; Katie already noted a technical possibility, and I am convinced also by way of behavior, and will place a brief note on Katie's CU page. I am blocking BarnaAires (talk · contribs) based on a possible technical match and on behavior (the seasoned editor will know what I mean). I find very tenuous connections, technical and behavioral, for two other users (Jérôme Maeder and ScienceGuard)--not enough to block, but enough to at least raise some questions. Drmies (talk) 15:00, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Casename moved to F1F2F2 as that is the oldest that I can see and tags applied. Closing.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 18:15, 23 August 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

Based on location, seems  Likely. No other suspect accounts located. Yunshui 雲水 13:27, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

19 January 2018

Suspected sockpuppets

LibreriaRei - similar editing pattern to many of the blocked. Make a number of copyediting edits to random article, turn user and talk page blue, then create a new article about a borderline notable company. Rentier (talk) 01:38, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adding more accounts that share the same editing style. Rentier (talk) 01:57, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Sro23! Linking to socks from the archive, [1], [2], [3] Bbb23, I can provide more evidence if needed, but prefer to avoid spilling the WP:BEANS if possible. Rentier (talk) 03:59, 20 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

This case is  Stale. However, given the history of the case, I am willing to compare the suspected socks to each other, but for each account there has to be diffs providing evidence of a relationship to the master or to any of the many socks in the archive. At this point there are none. @Rentier:?--Bbb23 (talk) 20:55, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

03 April 2019

Suspected sockpuppets

This account created Soundwalk Collective. Account was then blocked for username violation for being User:Collectivesoundwalk and changed their name to User:Sonnenalle44, which is still almost the same name but passes. Account then submitted Draft:Stephan Crasneanscki, and a reviewer raised the issue of conflict of interest. They deny any conflict of interest, which is incredible in the sense of not warranting belief by a rational H. sapiens. Anyway, Stephan Crasneanscki was once deleted as G5, attributed to this sockpuppet family, which creates drafts on marginally notable companies and their founders. This is another case of a marginally notable company and its founder. I am filing it under the current name of this sockpuppet family, although there may be an even older account.

Not requesting CheckUser because evidence is stale. Same swimming and flight pattern. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:35, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_118#Undisclosed_paid_editing_sockfarm . Robert McClenon (talk) 22:50, 3 April 2019 (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

06 April 2019

Suspected sockpuppets

The following accounts are stale for CU, but mentioned for context:

Yet another UPE sock/meat farm:

MER-C 13:01, 6 April 2019 (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/F1F2F2/Archive&oldid=892950583"