Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fairyspit/Archive

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.


Fairyspit

Fairyspit (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
03 August 2013
Suspected sockpuppets

At Katia Elizarova, making same changes as the edit warring User:Aikatastrophe - Diff here and here. Flat Out let's discuss it 12:41, 3 August 2013 (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
20 December 2013
Suspected sockpuppets

Both users upload pictures that they found on presumably Tumblr and claim them as their own. Both of Cumberbatch.

  • File:Cumberbatchtheatre(cropped).jpg
  • File:Cumberbatchstagedoornationaltheatre.png ‎
  • File:Sherlockcumberbatch2013.jpg
  • File:Cumberbatchsherlock2013.jpg
  • File:Benedict Cumberbatch at TIFF.png
  • Fairyspit – blocked for 1 week on 3 August 2013 for 3RR and use of multiple accounts, unblocked on August 10, 2013

-3 August 2013: Accused of sock puppetry before by User:Flat Out

  • Pinakulo – created August 16, 2013
  • 030891posts – created September 24, 2013


Articles all 3 users mainly edit:

  • Benedict Cumberbatch
  • Katia Elizarova (linked to dating Cumberbatch)
  • Anna James ‎(exgirlfriend of Cumberbatch)
  • Olivia Poulet ‎ ‎(exgirlfriend of Cumberbatch)
  • Lyndsey Turner (an article that Fairyspit created and has only been edited by them and Pinakulo, with a few other users doing minor edits)

[1] Lyndsey Turner history

  • Films Cumberbatch has appeared in: The Fifth Estate, The Imitation Game

On December 10, Fairyspit started an argument on Katia Elizarova with user:86.133.52.20 which then was taken over by 030891posts continuing the same argument with the same explanations as Fairyspit. On December 11, the argument continued with Pinakulo edit warring with user:86.133.52.20 on the same reversions until Fairyspit came back to revert user:86.133.52.20 reverting the same exact edit the other two editors had done.

  • [2] the edit showing even the IP user accused Pinakulo and 030891posts of sockpuppetry.

030891posts first reported an IP user for an edit war on Katia Elizarova, calling the edits “Editing and including gossip-y and unnecessary details”, which is the exact same edit that Pinakulo made when the edit war first started with the same IP user.

  • [3] The edit where Pinakulo says the edit is “it's UNNECESSARY AND GOSSIP-Y!” for user: 86.133.52.20
  • [4] The report 030891posts gives stating “Editing and including gossip-y and unnecessary details” against user: 86.133.52.20 (the same user)
  • [5]

The conversation on 030891posts talk page started by user: 86.133.52.20, with 030891posts using the same argument wanting “hard facts” as Pinakulo used on Katia Elizarova history. Also, IP user reported 030891posts for sock puppetry.

Edits showing Pinakulo changing the dimensions of an image, the same exact edit that Fairyspit kept repeating. As an editor, I’ve never seen another editor be so adamant about changing the dimensions of an image for a specific actor let alone two of them. Lady Lotus • talk 15:42, 20 December 2013 (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 January 2014
Suspected sockpuppets

User created around the same time that Fairyspit and other sockpuppeted accounts were blocked. Only edits the same articles that Fairyspit did (Benedict Cumberbatch, Anna James, Katia Elizarova, Cumberbatch's parents) Lady Lotus • talk 13:56, 6 January 2014 (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
25 January 2014
Suspected sockpuppets

Beachpasty was created just today (January 25) to recreate an article (Lyndsey Turner) that a previous sock of Fairyspit had created after it had been deleted this month.

Cluingforlooks and Mojomuning were created on 3 days apart and only stick to editing the articles of Benedict Cumberbatch and associates just like the previous sockpuppets have. This sockpuppet always creates 3 sockpuppeted accounts at a time LADY LOTUS • TALK 20:21, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
Another sock blocked today: TheGlassMenagerie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Yesterday, Tigilanmonato (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Guy (Help!) 09:45, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
Proxy galore, we'll be doing this one for a while. Amalthea 14:02, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some more -- I might block them right away, but contribs will need cleaning up -- there's is a new Lindsay Turner article, for example:

Amalthea 14:17, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

31 January 2014
Suspected sockpuppets


Master normally creates puppets in threes could a CU take a look please, this account is already blocked. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:40, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 Confirmed

There may be more, last time he was spread out over at least 35 ranges and I haven't checked them all.
Amalthea 10:22, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

05 February 2014
Suspected sockpuppets

Possible sock puppet of Fairyspit based off when account was created and the articles it edits, mostly Cumberbatch's LADY LOTUS • TALK 12:18, 5 February 2014 (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

 Clerk endorsed Worth a look, their contributions are to similar articles as Fairyspit and socks. And probably worth doing another sleeper check. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:49, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Confirmed

Amalthea 21:10, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

12 February 2014
Suspected sockpuppets

KoreanLuck is anew user, edits a majority of Benedict Cumberbatch and readds info that previous sockpuppeted accounts tried to add in the past. LADY LOTUS • TALK 16:47, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clueingforlooks is just another variation of another sock's name - user:Cluingforlooks LADY LOTUS • TALK 17:03, 12 February 2014 (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

 Check declined by a checkuser. In order to facilitate and expedite your request, please provide diffs to support your case. Please give two or more diffs meeting the following format:

  1. At least one diff is from the sockmaster (or an account already blocked as a confirmed sockpuppet of the sockmaster), showing the behaviour characteristic of the sockmaster.
  2. At least one diff per suspected sockpuppet, showing the suspected sockpuppet emulating the behaviour of the sockmaster given in the first diff.
  3. In situations where it is not immediately obvious from the diffs what the characteristic behaviour is, a short explanation must be provided. Around one sentence is enough for this.

--(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 04:57, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since I'm very fimiliar with this case it is easy for me to deduce the evidence by myself, and see the need for checkuser. However, next time you are asked to provide further evidence, please do so, you can't count on me being around, and it's the responsibility of the filer to present the evidence, not that of clerks/admins/CUs.
 Confirmed are

All blocked, have not looked into whether further measures are appropriate. Amalthea 16:02, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

17 February 2014
Suspected sockpuppets

Account created on February 5, 2014, around the time that other confirmed socks KoreanLuck, Clueingforlooks and Okatokattakotako were created. Mass edits Benedict Cumberbatch and associates (ie: Jonny Lee Miller, Sherlock (TV series), The Hobbit (film series), The Fifth Estate (film)). Articles that have also been edited by the confirmed socks Cluingforlooks, and KoreanLuck. Gets territorial over edits like against Span like most of the socks do LADY LOTUS • TALK 16:56, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. - if I need more differences please let me know LADY LOTUS • TALK 17:00, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please: while I see the article overlap, there's also a lot of rather atypical behavior here. Amalthea 18:14, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ya know, I think that's all the evidence I found was just the similarities in the mass edits to the same pages. These socks have me loopy. I would be more than willing to retract this if the user would comply with guidelines more and not get so defensive when other users try to help them. If this is just a mere coincidence then my apologies LADY LOTUS • TALK 21:17, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users

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

So am I still being investigated or has this all been cleared up? My defence has been listed in Lady Lotus's Talk Page. I probably should have stated them here but I'll just link it as it is faster. Here is the link. Thanks.- Over Hill and Under Hill (talk • contribs) 15:54, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

information Administrator note I'm going to close this investigation. I've thoroughly reviewed the contributions of the currently accused editor, and reviewed the contributions of Fairyspit and a number of their socks. I don't believe this editor is the same person. I will admit that the timing of Over Hill and Under Hill's account creation is suspicious, and there is a significant overlap between this editor's interests and those of Fairyspit. However, it is also consistent with an editor who happens to have a few tastes that overlap with Fairyspit (in particular, Benedict Cumberbatch, an actor who is generally very popular these days, which is not an alarming coincidence). I see some habits that OHaUH shares with edit summaries that differs from Fairyspit and socks, and usage of sandbox and user pages that is also very different. I also believe that OHaUH is the same editor as Jak Fisher, who last stopped editing just before OHaUH began, and whose final edits involved editing Ratchet & Clank articles, which happens to be related to the draft that OHaUH first began working on after the account was created. Fairyspit does not seem to have the video game interest that Jak/OHaUH has, and when comparing the topics that Jak and Fairyspit edited you see a major difference. I also see that even the person who opened this SPI has considered dropping the case. Based on all of this, I'm ready to close this SPI and suggest that OHaUH and Fairyspit are unrelated. -- Atama頭 21:10, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

23 March 2014
Suspected sockpuppets

Recreates Lyndsey Turner as WP:FAKEARTICLE on user page. Quack. Sam Sailor Sing 14:41, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Added LyndseyTurnerTheatreDirector, same thing. Sam Sailor Sing 14:47, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do for LyndseyTurnerDirector. Sam Sailor Sing 14:51, 23 March 2014 (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
24 March 2014
Suspected sockpuppets

Account created on March 22, 2014‎, the same day as the latest previous sock of Fairyspit (AngGandaNiVice) was blocked.

Edits Benedict Cumberbatch as usual, readded the Hedda Gabler (2005 revival) page that the previous socks were adamant about adding, after the page that ANOTHER sock had created was deleted

sorry if i have offended you with my use of words,, i want to say that i thought it was unnecessary because in your reason you deleted the whole sentence because the hedda gabler page doesn't exist,,, i got curious and i googled it and the first thing the pops up is the wiki page of hedda gabler,, that's why i though it was an unnecessary deletion and restored teh updated version of the page,, it wasn't libelous, false and it has a reference further down the page,, i don't know why im being accused of whatever this is when all i did is double check a page that another user thought didn't exist,, i also created my page last thursday (20th) and not on the 22th as this complainer indicated,, worth to double check once again,, i think my "date of creation" is easily acessible,,Damngoshgosh (talk) 13:43, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

i don't know how this works i was tinkering on my user page saw "what links here" and then i was brought here,, i also don't know how this works so i am just going to repeat what i said above,,sorry if i have offended you with my use of words,, i want to say that i thought it was unnecessary because in your reason you deleted the whole sentence because the hedda gabller page doesn't exist,,, i got curious and i googled it and the first thing the pops up is the wiki page of hedda gabller,, that's why i though it was an unnecessary deletion and restored teh updated version of the page,, it wasn't libelous, false and it has a reference further down the page,, i don't know why im being accused of whatever this is when all i did is double check a page that another user thought didn't exist,, i also created my page last thursday (20th) and not on the 22th as this complainer indicated,, worth to double check once again,, i think my "date of creation" is easily acessible,,Damngoshgosh (talk) 13:43, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
26 March 2014
Suspected sockpuppets

Blocked as a duck after attempting to add external links to Lyndsey Turner bio. I blocked the first IP for a week since it had previously been used to make sock edits. The second IP I did not block as it has only made one edit. Adding to SPI report since previous reports resulted in sleepers found. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 15:46, 26 March 2014 (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


28 March 2014
Suspected sockpuppets

Account created on 23 March 2014, 3 days before the last sock was blocked, (26 March 2014), 2 days before one of the most recent socks of Fairyspit was blocked (Damngoshgosh on March 25, 2014)

All the puppets edit Benedict Cumberbatch and always use the Reflinks: to convert bare references LADY LOTUS • TALK 12:06, 28 March 2014 (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 April 2014
Suspected sockpuppets

Account created on 25 March 2014, around the same time that other socks of Fairyspit were both created and blocked (Gun Control Babe, Coral Bird and Damngoshgosh)

  • Gun Control Babe - created on March 26, 2014, blocked same day
  • Coral Bird - created on 23 March 2014, blocked March 30, 2014
  • Damngoshgosh - created on 20 March 2014, blocked March 25, 2014

Created a page basically just because Benedict Cumberbatch is a member. Edits Cumberbatch just like every other sock.

Uploaded two unnecessary magazine covers of Cumberbatch, like the other socks did with Cumberbatch on the cover of Time

  • File:Hollywoodreporternewalist.jpg
  • File:Highlife magazine.jpg

Per WP:DUCK LADY LOTUS • TALK 16:03, 1 April 2014 (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

Okay, this is a bloody mess. The following are technically confirmed, though the behaviour doesn't all line up. (Though they can be traced back to a prior sock)

Differently;

Comment I would definitely say User:ChelseaArtists as one, their style of creating pages specifically to link it on Cumberbatch's page is what all the other socks do. LADY LOTUS • TALK 18:13, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Lady Lotus: Can you give me the diff of where ChelseaArtists linked to Cumberbatch's page? Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:34, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Administrator note Alright, I've gone through and had a look at the behaviour. My bar for connection was lower than it otherwise would have been given this history of this master and the CU results. I won't close the case just yet so that others can comment. The only accounts I haven't blocked are ActorsActorsActors as there isn't enough behaviour to make a definite block of (but I've tagged them as a possible sock). I also haven't blocked ChelseaArtists, as I need to have a closer look first. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:30, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they created the page Creativations-Chelsea and the only names linked are Omar Mansoor and Anna James which the socks were obsessed with Anna James because she used to date Cumberbatch. Maybe that sounds farfetched but thats just the type of behavior that the socks do, create articles just to link it to Cumberbatch. (Ex: Lyndsey Turner) LADY LOTUS • TALK 10:21, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It took me only a brief search to work out that "Cumberbatch" must refer to someone named "Benedict Cumberbatch", but it would have saved a little trouble to have said so. In the light of the CU verdict "technically confirmed, though the behaviour doesn't all line up", I looked for any evidence of behavioural similarity to the other sockpuppets, especially Slice Price, in view of the CU statement "ChelseaArtists matches Slice Price, not the others". There certainly does seem to be a connection in the Omar Mansoor/Anna James/Cumberbatch linking. I also found some other similarities between ChelseaArtists and several other sockpuppets. The similarities were all fairly small, such as creating minimal user pages at an early stage in their editing history, but all put together they looked suggestive, and added to the Omar Mansoor/Anna James/Cumberbatch issue and the "technically confirmed", they seem to me to make a positive case. I have therefore blocked ChelseaArtists. It is also perhaps worth mentioning that ChelseaArtists looks very much like a promotion-only account. ActorsActorsActors may well be another sockpuppet, but the one edit so far is not enough to justify any action. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:55, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
12 May 2014
Suspected sockpuppets
  • Aliya Surf's account made less than a month after the last batch of sock puppets were blocked, mass edits Benedict Cumberbatch like the other socks have.
  • Chocolate Charlie's account made 2 days before Aliya Surf. They too mass edit Cumberbatch's article page and get slightly controlling when others make edits they don't agree with.
  • The edit that made me suspicious was this one where she added a URL to Anna James' name after the wikipedia page for James had been deleted. Anna James was one of Cumberbatch's ex's that the socks were obsessed over, so I find it hard to believe that anyone else would want to link her name other than one of them.
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

The following are  Likely socks, but behavioural evidence should also be considered, as there are multiple UAs and highly dynamic IPs involved:

Note, the first two accounts were tagged by a disruptive IP so their tags have been removed. Risker (talk) 02:11, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 CheckUser is not magic pixie dust: Please evaluate the contributions of these accounts and reach a determination based on behavioural evidence. AGK [•] 18:51, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


22 May 2014
Suspected sockpuppets

New account, edits Benedict Cumberbatch and his filmography and awards like all the other socks have, uploaded an unfree image like all the other socks have done. Per WP:DUCK LADY LOTUS • TALK 11:07, 22 May 2014 (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
18 July 2014
Suspected sockpuppets

Per WP:DUCK

Has uploaded images of Benedict Cumberbatch, the main obsession of the all socks. Files included File:The sunday cover.jpg, File:Guardian front page.jpg, and File:Hollywoodreportercover.jpg (the last being the same image another sock tried to upload before they were blocked) LADY LOTUS • TALK 20:19, 18 July 2014 (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
  •  Confirmed to previous socks in the archive:
Sleeper checks are extremely tedious (could take hours on end) and yield little results, therefore I did not complete one for this case. Please keep watching the articles. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 04:18, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
30 July 2014
Suspected sockpuppets

per WP:DUCK. Obsessive with Benedict Cumberbatch like all the other socks were. Uses reflinks to fill in links like the other socks, uploads images of Cumberbatch like the other socks (File:BpVByChIcAAONR-.jpg) LADY LOTUS • TALK 11:27, 30 July 2014 (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


22 August 2014
Suspected sockpuppets

per WP:DUCK. I have had a feeling about this user for a while, with my involvement in almost all the other sock puppet cases, and with the obsession of Benedict Cumberbatch, I'm wondering about this again. I reworded Cumberbatch's lead and removed a film, The Fifth Estate, a film that the other socks were obsessed about and this caused GreenEcoFashion to go to my talk page, the original GA nominator Jaguar‎ and Cumberbatch's talk page to complain about the changes I made. Just seems familiar. Wanting to get a CheckUser done to be sure. LADY LOTUS • TALK 20:36, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Rschen7754:

1. edit where GreenEcoFashion added back information that I had removed and specifically added back an entire sentence regarding the film The Fifth Estate'.

"In 2013, he played the lead character of Julian Assange in DreamWorks' The Fifth Estate".
The other socks were obsessed with The Fifth Estate, just look at the history Fairyspit and confirmed sock 030891posts did mass editing to it

2. edit of confirmed sock Chocolate Charlie adding the almost exact sentence

"In the same year, he played the lead character of Julian Assange in The Fifth Estate."

3. edit of confirmed sock Aliya Surf adding in the "DreamWorks" bit

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
  •  Additional information needed -  Clerk declined. In order to facilitate and expedite your request, please provide diffs to support your case. Please give two or more diffs meeting the following format:
  1. At least one diff is from the sockmaster (or an account already blocked as a confirmed sockpuppet of the sockmaster), showing the behaviour characteristic of the sockmaster.
  2. At least one diff per suspected sockpuppet, showing the suspected sockpuppet emulating the behaviour of the sockmaster given in the first diff.
  3. In situations where it is not immediately obvious from the diffs what the characteristic behaviour is, a short explanation must be provided. Around one sentence is enough for this. Rschen7754 04:12, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]


27 August 2014
Suspected sockpuppets

Has created an entire page for Sophie Hunter, to link it to Benedict Cumberbatch, which the socks are obsessed with. The socks have done this in the past with Lyndsey Turner, Creativations-Chelsea, and Blacks (Private members club). Has edited on Cumberbatchs and Hunters page with only 2 other random edits LADY LOTUS • TALK 11:25, 27 August 2014 (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


11 September 2014
Suspected sockpuppets

Regarding 000BCF and Lindsayart: Per WP:DUCK, the user has edited only articles about and related to Benedict Cumberbatch, the article that ALL the other socks were obsessed with editing. The first thing they did as a user was create an article solely based off Cumberbatch, even though it is now deleted. LADY LOTUS • TALK 15:59, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'Regarding 120.28.127.4, 120.28.127.142 & 20.28.127.5: Blanking the page of this SPI like the others, so per WP:DUCK, I can only image they just don't want to be discovered thus removing the investigation. LADY LOTUS • TALK 14:56, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding French Film Star & Fandom police: Per WP Duck, these two users only edit articles about Benedict Cumberbatch's friends or to add mentions of said friends to other articles. French Film Star recreated the page for Sophie Hunter under Sophie Ann Hunter, and Fandom Police added a completely unsourced and false statement about the subject of the article. Sophie Hunter is arguably not notable and this behavior is typical of Fairyspit. Avianax (talk) 15:31, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the rest: At 04:09, SecretGirlfriend creates the page for Sophie Hunter (theatre director). At 04:13, 04:15, and 04:18, 180.191.171.81 makes edits. At 04:32 and 04:55, SecretGirlfriend edits. Due to the timing, it seems obvious that SecretGirlfriend and 180.191.171.81 are the same editor. 120.28.127.53 edits at 08:48 on the same day, and 180.191.175.208 edits on September 14th. All three IPs seem to originate from the same city and make the same sorts of edits.

"SecretGirlfriend" is very similar to "Brunettegirlfriend", one of Fairyspit's socks banned just weeks ago. It doesn't seem like a coincidence that SecretGirlfriend popped up only days after Brunettegirlfriend was banned.

Per WP:DUCK, the user has edited only articles related to Benedict Cumberbatch. The first thing they did as a user was to create an article based off of one of Cumberbatch's friends, even though she is arguably not notable. All other edits have revolved around this subject in some way.

As User:Lady_Lotus pointed out in the 27 August 2014 sockpuppet discussion about Brunettegirlfriend, this user is obsessed with creating a page for Benedict Cumberbatch's female friends, even to the point of exaggerating their credentials in an effort to make them notable. She has done this before with other subjects related to Cumberbatch such as Lyndsey Turner, whose page was removed. In this case, she claims that Hunter is director of a theatre that she is not affiliated with as well as claiming notability due to bit parts and extra work. I attempted to flag Sophie Hunter (theatre director) for non notability, but SecretGirlfriend quickly removed the tag.

Please note that someone using the IP address 120.28.125.82 (which is traceable back to the same city as the others) erased this report shortly after I made it. The edits should be viewable in the history for this page. Avianax (talk) 04:10, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Noel Tangco removed my comment to Mike V on checking this SPI, they are also associated with Sophie Hunter
Comments by other users

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

  • The socks are obsessed with all of Cumberbatch's female friends/associates/lovers, like the ones you listed above, Lyndsey Turner, etc. I suppose it's something of a calling card. - Avianax (talk) 22:42, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
Following are  Confirmed to each other:
no No comment with respect to IP address(es). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:12, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't look like it, there wasn't enough technical evidence for me to be sure, probably closer to  Inconclusive than unrelated. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:13, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
03 October 2014
Suspected sockpuppets

The IP edited to get the shackleton project on the page and kept undoing edits to remove then created a username to edit the same edit under the name Phantomlimbtheatre which is now a blocked sock LADY LOTUS • TALK 19:49, 3 October 2014 (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
  •  Clerk declined Checkusers cannot connect IP addresses to users, so they won't be able to confirm or deny any relation. While the behavioral evidence looks like it's likely, I believe the IP address has been assigned to a new individual by now. To help with the overall issue, I semi-protected the page for 1 week. Mike V • Talk 20:02, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
07 October 2014
Suspected sockpuppets

per WP:DUCK; mass edits Sophie Hunter, a page solely made by the other socks LADY LOTUS • TALK 17:48, 7 October 2014 (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
20 October 2014
Suspected sockpuppets

Both per WP:DUCK LADY LOTUS • TALK 11:59, 20 October 2014 (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
27 October 2014
Suspected sockpuppets

per WP:DUCK, mass edits Sophie Hunter - a page that a now-blocked sock created LADY LOTUS • TALK 18:31, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fan of the Dames used to Dame Judi and had a previous SPI open here to which I thought they might have been a sockpuppet to Fairyspit then just couldn't prove it but I can now. So please take that into consideration.

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 November 2014
Suspected sockpuppets

per WP:DUCK, made a huge edit to Cumberbatch's page about being engaged to Sophie Hunter, both pages are massively edited by socks. "OliviaPGirl" I can only image is for "Olivia Poulet", which is one of Cumberbatch's exs. LADY LOTUS • TALK 12:27, 5 November 2014 (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
13 November 2014
Suspected sockpuppets

per WP:DUCK, uploaded an image of Sophie Hunter "claiming" to be photographer Adam Bune, just like another sock did previously of Harvey K. LADY LOTUS • TALK 12:34, 13 November 2014 (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
14 November 2014
Suspected sockpuppets

All 3 IPs and user per WP:DUCK, being disruptive on Sophie Hunters page about the image just like the other socks LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:38, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eurydice Leus has now resorted to spamming editors and WP:CANVASSING to protest an edit I made adding an external image to the page. Benjamin Beyersdorf has also reached out to editors to get them to help on a page related to Hunter and Cumberbatch, just like the other socks have done. LADY LOTUS • TALK 14:07, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
19 November 2014
Suspected sockpuppets

per WP:DUCK, user changed external image on Sophie Hunter after continous reverts to stop the other socks from doing the same exact thing LADY LOTUS • TALK 01:15, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

As I said in Lady Lotus talk page as well as the edit summary. Why are we linking an external image of her all the way from 2011 when she has one in 2014 from the same source, IMDB. It's just logical that the most recent photo should be linked. And IMDB was considered a reliable source basing on the previous external image.Daddy Diabetes (talk) 01:34, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This isnt about the image, this is about your behavior and being a sock. LADY LOTUS • TALK 01:47, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ban me then. But the rational still stands that the image I have linked is more appropriate for the page since it's more recent. It's from IMDB too which you yourself linked in the first place.Daddy Diabetes (talk) 01:53, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You ARE banned! You just keep making socks and with the same mentality that you are always right, that your edits are always right. It's that kind of thinking that got you banned! Ive told you countless times to take it to the talk page but you wont, you near edit war and then make another sock. It's ridiculous. As long as we're talking about rational, her image from 2011 is fine because she looks the exact same. So what if the image is you found is more recent and (surprise!) with Cumberbatch? the image doesnt need to be contiously changed to an image that YOU want. All that was needed was an image and there is one. Leave it alone. LADY LOTUS • TALK 02:05, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You also have the same mentality that because you're an administrator, YOU are always right. Just look at what happened when your fellow admins rejected your nominations for the deletion of the page. I may be a sock, but I still have a point. And you're too prideful to admit that yes, indeed, it's more appropriate to link a photo of Hunter in 2014 because she has changed. You just don't want change it because that would mean giving into my more sound rational. I don't even know why there's an external image link in the page when it's not really necessary and other pages survive without one. I have raised this issue in the talk page already. The 2014 photo should be used, it's available, recent, and from a reliable source.Daddy Diabetes (talk) 03:01, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Who's "right" or "wrong" on page content is irrelevant for SPI's. It is never at all appropriate to sock, especially to evade blocks or bans. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:50, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Daddy Diabetes: well first off, I'm not an administrator but I don't think I'm always right even if I were one. The whole reason I added the external image, which you're right, it's not necessary, was to stop YOU from posing as photographers to get her image uploaded to commons to add to her page. Otherwise, I would have never added an image. So again, this comes back to you being a sock and not knowing when to stop. You can NEVER justify being a sock, you have created over FIFTY sock accounts. That's ridiculous. I understand you want the best for Cumberbatch's and now Hunter's page but you take it too far, every single time. And I still don't think you understand, that as a sock, even when it's from a reliable source, it loses it's credit coming from you. LADY LOTUS • TALK 12:49, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
01 December 2014
Suspected sockpuppets

per WP:DUCK, has an obsession with adding The Imitation Game to Cumberbatch's lead like the other socks LADY LOTUS • TALK 01:28, 1 December 2014 (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
03 February 2015
Suspected sockpuppets

per WP:DUCK, mass edits Benedict Cumberbatch like the other socks do LADY LOTUS • TALK 12:49, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Babylove0306 recreated the article Anna James which was an ex-girlfriend of Cumberbatchs that isn't notable and the article kept being deleted and recreated by socks. It's now an article again. LADY LOTUS • TALK 12:54, 3 February 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
04 February 2015
Suspected sockpuppets

per WP:DUCK; mass edits Sophie Hunter (girlfriend of Benedict Cumberbatch) and is territorial about related pages like how the other socks have been. LADY LOTUS • TALK 12:55, 4 February 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
07 February 2015
Suspected sockpuppets

per WP:DUCK, has aggressive and territorial behavior over Sophie Hunter LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:23, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

    • Why are you endorsing use of checkuser? Is anyone that edits Sophie Hunter a possible Fairyspit? Actually the user that has aggressive and territorial behavior over Sophie Hunter is the reporter here User:Lotus Lady - I am not and there is no evidence presented here to suggest that I am user fairyspit - Govindaharihari (talk) 01:15, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
15 February 2015
Suspected sockpuppets


The account shows a similar interest in Benedict Cumberbatch and Sophie Hunter, just like past accounts. There's also the same quick edits in a row (1, 2, 3, 4) as past socks have done. (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) Mike V • Talk 01:37, 15 February 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
Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:49, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
18 February 2015
Suspected sockpuppets

Per duck. Also, the other sock kept putting Sophie Hunter's baby announcement at the end of the personal life after the wedding even though she got pregnant before they got married. FeministAtHeart readded it back. LADY LOTUS • TALK 12:12, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, a previous sock was "Miss Iceland". "FeministAtHeart" was "Lady Greenland" but had the name changed to what it is now. LADY LOTUS • TALK 12:18, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Not the first time it changed its name this month, the last major account, User:Proud Austrian Paulinian got its name changed just days before being blocked thinking changing his/her name will make him/her harder to find and thats another European country (Iceland, Greenland and Austria) it used as a name...--Stemoc 00:03, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
20 February 2015
Suspected sockpuppets

Per WP:DUCK, just recently created account and one of the first edits on Sophie Hunter's page is to undo an edit from another user that the socks had been adamant about undoing LADY LOTUS • TALK 01:50, 20 February 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
24 February 2015
Suspected sockpuppets

this edit is the same style as the how the socks edit. per WP:DUCK and it's a newly created account LADY LOTUS • TALK 07:13, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. So, what did the user do wrong? They seemed to answer every comment you had. They seemed to have a legitimate reason and/or promised to stop socking, what more could you want? Kitty 56 (talk) 14:22, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because of the fact that Fairyspit was blocked in December 2013‎ and banned in April 2014 and since then has made over 80 socks after "promising to stop" and is still continuing to do so. They have no place editing Wikipedia, they have an obsession over Benedict Cumberbatch and anyone associated with him and get territorial over his pages. LADY LOTUS • TALK 15:39, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
04 March 2015
Suspected sockpuppets

per WP:DUCK and also this edit on Zooey Deschanel's page is very similiar in style to how the socks edit, they massive edit pages and that edit is very similar to this edit on Sophie Hunter's page, which the socks are obsessive with.

  • Letters from Asaki's edit summary on Deschanel page "they are already engaged and having a baby"
  • Confirmed sock puppet February Jones' edit summary on Sophie Hunter's page "they're engaged, they're having a baby and he is referenced as her partner in the guardian as referenced" LADY LOTUS • TALK 12:19, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users

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

It's him. Clear-cut WP:Duck case. Flyer22 (talk) 12:25, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
24 March 2015
Suspected sockpuppets

per WP:DUCK LADY LOTUS • TALK 11:17, 24 March 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
31 March 2015
Suspected sockpuppets

Per WP:DUCK LADY LOTUS • TALK 11:05, 31 March 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
01 April 2015
Suspected sockpuppets

per WP:DUCK LADY LOTUS • TALK 11:22, 1 April 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
24 April 2015
Suspected sockpuppets

Per WP:DUCK Mike V, Ponyo LADY LOTUS • TALK 11:07, 24 April 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


24 April 2015
Suspected sockpuppets

WP:DUCK. NeilN talk to me 15:40, 24 April 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
18 May 2015
Suspected sockpuppets

per WP:DUCK; adding same edits to Benedict Cumberbatch as socks did before the full protection. Mike V Ponyo LADY LOTUS • TALK 11:15, 18 May 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
16 June 2015
Suspected sockpuppets

per WP:DUCK, near edit wars over trivial information on Benedict Cumberbatch like all other socks LADY LOTUS • TALK 17:22, 16 June 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
  •  Additional information needed - @Lady Lotus: In order to facilitate and expedite your request, please provide diffs to support your case. Please give two or more diffs meeting the following format:
  1. At least one diff is from the sockmaster (or an account already blocked as a confirmed sockpuppet of the sockmaster), showing the behaviour characteristic of the sockmaster.
  2. At least one diff per suspected sockpuppet, showing the suspected sockpuppet emulating the behaviour of the sockmaster given in the first diff.
  3. In situations where it is not immediately obvious from the diffs what the characteristic behaviour is, a short explanation must be provided. Around one sentence is enough for this. Vanjagenije (talk) 17:42, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In this particular case I happen to (unfortnately) be quite familiar with this sockmaster and their antics and this was definitely a behavioural and  Confirmed technical match. I've blocked and tagged the account and nixed the article creations. They're using a boatload of proxies, so I'm off to block those.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:18, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

05 August 2015

Suspected sockpuppets

Per WP:DUCK and similar user name that of a previous Fairyspit sock User:TuppenceTuppence LADY LOTUS • TALK 01:03, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike V:, @Ponyo:. LADY LOTUS • TALK 01:04, 5 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

28 October 2015

Suspected sockpuppets

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/Fairyspit/Archive&oldid=1142567518"