Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets
This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets".

content
This page has a backlog that requires the attention of one or more administrators.
Please remove this notice when the backlog is cleared.
General help
Report abuse
Request assistance
Noticeboards
Shortcuts:
WP:SUSPSOCK
WP:SSP
Refresh the page

Administrator instructions

The suspected sock puppets page is where Wikipedians discuss if a fellow Wikipedian has violated Wikipedia's policy on sock puppets. Cases on this page are evaluated primarily on the basis of behavioral evidence, and the editors and administrators who look at the reports typically do not have the ability to determine what IP addresses Wikipedia editors are using. If you believe your case requires an IP check, please go to requests for checkuser.

Sometimes users who appear to work with a common agenda are not sockpuppets (one user, multiple accounts), but multiple users editing with the sole purpose of backing each other up, often called "meatpuppets." Meatpuppets are not regular Wikipedians who happen to agree with each other; they are accounts set up by separate individuals for the sole purpose of supporting one another. For the purposes of upholding policy, Wikipedia does not distinguish between meatpuppets and sockpuppets. Please see Wikipedia:Sock puppetry.

Contents

Administrators

Administrators please see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Administrators for detailed instructions about how to determine sockpuppets, archiving, etc. for editing here at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets (WP:SSP).

Reporting suspected sock puppets

view •

Caution
Before creating a report at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets (WP:SSP), please be sure that:
  1. The problem is current; if the suspected sock puppets have not edited recently, the case will likely be closed as stale. If the problem is not ongoing, just watch the user and report when you see a new instance of abuse.
  2. You have strong evidence. If your evidence is weak, then it will be nearly impossible to reach a determination of sockpuppetry. All your statements should be supported by diffs.
  3. The sockpuppet account you suspect is not already blocked.
  4. The sockpuppet account you suspect is not already reported. Look through open SSP cases for usernames frequently associated with your suspect. Both older and newer cases, many of whose accounts are now blocked, show up in the categories for sockpuppeteers, sockpuppets, and suspected sockpuppets.
  1. Assume good faith, if possible. An alternate account that is not used for abuse does not warrant a complaint. Keep in mind that users may sometimes make mistakes, so in cases where an alternate account is largely used for legitimate activities, it may be appropriate to ask the user before making accusations. The problem might merely have been caused by a mistaken login or other absent-mindedness.
  2. Fill in the names. Clicking "Start a case" with a new case name-or-number opens a fresh page, with a form ready to be filled in. The puppetmaster's name will be automatically filled in as the filename; if this is not correct, due to added numbers like "(2nd)", replace the {{SUBPAGENAME}} tags with the puppetmaster's username. Also replace the placeholder names SOCKPUPPET1 and SOCKPUPPET2 with the account names of the suspected puppets; add or delete these lines as needed. Always leave out the "User:" prefix.
  3. Make your case. Now write up your evidence in the "Evidence" section. This should describe why you believe there's puppetry occurring, however obvious it might be. If this is not the first time the user is suspected, links to other cases you know about should be provided as well. The evidence should point to one or more instances of illegitimate use of the puppet account. Include the diffs to support your statements. Sign and timestamp your case with ~~~~ on the line below "Report submission by"; preview your report for any problems; and, when you're satisfied, save it.
    To start a case report about suspected sockpuppetry:

    Cases are created on subpages of Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets.
    To do so, add the username of the puppetmaster (the main account, not the sockpuppet!) -- and the number of the case, "(2nd)", "(3rd)", etc., if there were previous cases on that username -- into the box below.
    Leave out the "User:" prefix. Replace only the word PUPPETMASTER, leaving the rest as is.

    Example: if there were already two cases about User:John Doe, the new case would be titled:
    Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/John Doe (3rd)

    Then click "Start a case". You will be taken to a page where you can fill out the report.
    After you've saved the report, come back to see the remaining instructions below this box.


  4. List your case for review in the WP:SSP open cases section here. Add the line {{Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/PUPPETMASTER}} (or PUPPETMASTER (2nd) or PUPPETMASTER (3rd), etc.) at the top of the list, just below the section header. (Again, remember to replace PUPPETMASTER with the actual account name, without the "User:" prefix.) Save your edit. Check to see that your report shows up at the top of the list, just below the "Open cases" header. If there's only a red link, check that the spelling of the username and the number match the filename you created.
  5. Notify the suspected users. Edit the user talk pages (not the user pages) of the suspected sockpuppeteer and sock puppets to add the text {{subst:socksuspectnotice|1=PUPPETMASTER}} ~~~~ at the bottom of the talk page. If this is not the first time the user is suspected, the most recent evidence page should be specified by adding "(2nd)" or "(3rd)", etc., after the user's name: {{subst:socksuspectnotice|1=PUPPETMASTER (2nd)}} ~~~~ or similar.
  6. Consequences. If the evidence shows a case of clear abuse, with no serious doubt, an administrator may block any sockpuppets, and take further action against the puppetmaster. In less severe cases, administrators may quietly monitor the account's activities.
  7. Checking further. In some cases, where there is significant abuse and yet puppetry is not certain, it might be appropriate to use technical means to detect puppetry. See Requests for checkuser (WP:RFCU) for details.


Open cases

User:HHNRecordsPR

Suspected sock puppeteer

HHNRecordsPR (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · checkuser)

Suspected sock puppets
Report submission by
  • Kww (talk) 03:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Evidence

As for identity, it's the classic "I made that comment with the wrong account, so I better go change the signature strategy. As for abusive sockpuppeting, they both participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HHN Records, (see this deleted edit for HHNRecordsPR)and it's pretty obvious that HHNRecordsPR had a pretty strong motivation for keeping the article and disguising his identity during the argument.

Comments
  • Please remember to notify all accounts listed as possibly linked to the sock puppetry in question (instructions).
  • HHNRecordsPR was banned from posting any more infomation on this site. Since that was everything I wanted to say, I placed my signature at the end of the comment. Also, since you are looking into the posting history, you can clearly see I placed my signature there after they were banned. Question, If I was HHNRecords, Why whould I disguise my identity if I thought I was posting the comment under the GhostDog21 user name? I know the person HHNRecordsPR, and just like me, they are not with the label either. I'm not sure why they picked that name, dumb idea. That person told me the reason they were banned was due to them having the label name in thier user name, and it seemed like they worked for the label, which is B.S. I noticed on the history of G-Unit Records and Shady Records that there are user names with the label in them, Heck, there is even an administrator with G-unit in their user name, and they make contributions to the label articles. • GhostDog21 (talk) 12:07:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Either way seems like puppetry (even if of the meat kind) which isn't allowed. And changing someone else's signature is stictly verboten anyway. Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
  • BubbleGum Gang Leader seems a little too keen at establishing they are not a sockpuppet. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 20:26, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm glad someone notified me of this. Otherwise I would have known nothing about it and couldn't have defended myself or even ask questions. What I do recall is me stating that I would like to upload a proper article for HHN Records on wikipedia. After requesting GhostDog21 to send all his information on the company to me. I found out that you had the name blocked from recreation. I told you that I had no affiliation with the company and that I understood wikipedia's policies and guidelines on uploading an article on a business company, and to see if you would take the protection block off the name. I don't understand how that could make me a suspected sock puppet. I don't think there is really much I could do about being labeled a suspected sock puppet. I'm just going to try my best to get HHN Records a proper article and to become an established editor again. Thanks for those options on your talk page. ~ ~ ~ ~ BubbleGum Gang Leader (Talk|contribs) 18:54:36, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Conclusions

User:James Nancy

Suspected sock puppeteer

James Nancy (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · checkuser)

Suspected sock puppets
Report submission by
Evidence
  • The suspected puppetmaster, James Nancy, is currently unhappy with a CSD tag on his own company (William Bruce Agency), and has been removing it several times ever since. After getting his warning level up to level 4 it is silent quite a while, but suddenly a new user, Joseph Pomeroy, comes in and removed the CSD template. This account has been registered just 10 minutes before doing so, and has only editing the article in question. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 19:54, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Comments
  • Circumstantial evidence looks likely, such is the desire to make the article stick. My guess is that it's an inexperienced editor who is trying to promote business. JNW (talk) 20:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Conclusions

User:Brianyau323

Suspected sock puppeteer

Brianyau323 (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · checkuser)

Suspected sock puppets
Report submission by
  • Kww (talk) 15:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Evidence

FrJonas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) was blocked as a sockpuppet of Brianyau323 as documented in Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Brianyau323 (2nd). These anonymous IPs have since popped up restoring all of FrJonas's edits. These are dynamic, so an individual IP block won't work. Maybe a 48 hour one against 219.77.*.* and 219.79.*.*. Big range, but short block. Maybe he'll finally get the clue.

Alternatively, semi-protecting all articles in 219.77.182.39's edit history for a few weeks could be an effective solution. That would be

Plus a few others that Brianyau323 frequently edits:

Comments

Problem solved through prolonged inaction (not my favorite way to go). Persistent reversion of all edits seems to have made him stop.Kww (talk) 13:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Active again the next day via 219.79.42.150.Kww (talk) 14:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
And as 219.79.217.99.Kww (talk) 14:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
And yet more as 219.77.181.162.Kww (talk) 14:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Might be wise to file a RFCU to check if IP range block causes large collateral damage. OhanaUnitedTalk page 13:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
A simple whois reveals that it is registered to an address in Hong Kong [1]Vandalismterminator (talk) 13:51, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Netvigator is a large ISP. While I don't rule out socking, the opposite could also hold true. OhanaUnitedTalk page 18:47, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
I had given up on anyone ever doing anything about this. I have a tool that scans anonymous edits from a range, and evaluated the period of Sept 14-Sept 18 (current as of the time I ran it). His actual range of IPs is pretty narrow:219.77.128.0/18, 219.79.40.0/22 and 219.79.128.0/17 would block his edits. All edits from the 22 and 17 were from Brian Yau. The larger range was about 30% Brian Yau, and 70% other editors. I think blocking the 22 and 24 for a few weeks would have been appropriate. I just reran, and a small minority of the edits appear to have been Brian (6 edits, all from 219.79.162.3). This rangeblock would have been appropriate if applied in a timely fashion, but 5 weeks late? Doesn't seem like the appropriate way to go.—Kww(talk) 19:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Conclusions

User:Ayça Leovinus

Suspected sock puppeteer

Shuppiluliuma (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · checkuser)

Suspected sock puppets