Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Buzzards-Watch Me Work/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Buzzards-Watch Me Work

31 March 2015
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Based on the evidence at this AfD. BWMW comes from Northern Virginia (according to their userpage). The IP editor had little or no edits (only 4 in the past 2 years) prior to theis AfD before they "discovered" it. Their IP address is located in Northern Virginia. They edit similar cycling articles with the same edit summary [1] and [2]. I raised this at ANI and was advised to come here. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:21, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

On a biweekly basis, I visit a friend working at the IP. During lunch, we discussed Wikipedia and Team Novo Nordisk, he’s diabetic... Anyway he made the contributions. Can it be verified? CheckUser will show 99% of my edits are located an hour away. The other 1% are located across the Washington area. The time was after lunch and work; I usually edit in the evenings (after 7:00 pm). So no, it can’t. But the location, time, and the contributions, he couldn't use links, offer support. The diffs are two years old; if they were a month or a year, I understand; but two years? That's a long time. Plus it's one word "website"; it's fairly common. Why did I not mention it first? Because Richmond was noted, I have no connections with that city; I thought it was a coincidence... Although I had my theory, the IP address runs through the administrative center, I didn't want this process to ensue. It looks strange having a friend push an AfD; it’s kind of pathetic. With that being said, this doesn't fall under puppeteering. If persuading someone’s vote is wrong, then I deserve sanctions. However, I am not a puppeteer, and any actions in that regard, I unequivocally deny. My history shows I’m a productive and constructive user... I don’t think I've ever slandered the project or an editor. Although I believe I’m unwanted by the nominator… I wish someone notified me; I would have responded quicker. Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 02:29, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Anyway he made the contributions." Pure gold. So your "friend" you see on a biweekly basis, who has a handful of edits, just happens to want to !vote in that discussion. WP:DUCK. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:07, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We discussed it during lunch... But it doesn't matter. I could webcam us, go on international TV, and you wouldn't change your mind. It's pointless. Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 01:53, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Buzzards-Watch Me Work: This is when you are caught, if you are not a sock then why you even have to advocate your position? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 06:15, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The section says "defend" yourself here, so I did. Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 17:26, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, Buzzards. If you claim what you say is true, talk to your "lunchtime buddy" and agree two different articles to edit at the same time. Say 12 noon where you are. Both of you add a dummy space in those articles and then revert each others edits. At exactly the same time. Shouldn't be too hard. You should be able to do this in the next 48hrs. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:43, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment; Please excuse my skepticism, but couldn't he also use two computers/browsers to pull this off?... Just a possibility. It might not be true. Zeke Essiestudy (talk) 22:14, 3 April 2015 (UT)
Each organization and home has their own. However, office buildings/apartments usually have multiple IPs or ranges (they share one)... It's not a bad idea. Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 23:17, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Funny that since Buzzards was outted, his sock account has gone quiet. Can't think why that might be... Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:50, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
  •  Clerk note: This looks like either sockpuppetry or coordinated editing, but more like sockpuppetry. Both display similar style: After posting a comment, they make minor edits to their comment instead of using preview function (Buzzards: [3][4], IP: [5][6]). They editing two different articles about cycling teams on the same day, using same edit summaries [7][8]. Chances of something like that happening coincidentally are incredibly low. Still, I can't be sure, so I'll wait for other admins and clerks to comment. Vanjagenije (talk) 17:55, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm unwilling to find that Buzzards edited while not logged in. Rather, I think what he's done constitutes meat puppetry ("If persuading someone’s vote is wrong, then I deserve sanctions"). Accordingly, I have warned Buzzards that if he does this again, there will be harsher consequences than just a warning. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:08, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

18 May 2020

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]


In March 2020, the sockmaster (BWMW) voluntarily retired[9] amid a admin noticeboard discussion to have him topic-banned (the topic ban was never implemented, possibly because they retired in the middle of the discussion.[10] In April 2020, sock 1 (SETNR) began editing[11]. In May 2020, sock 2 (the IP account) began editing again after a dormant period.[12] Evidence 1: The editor interaction analyzer shows that these three accounts have substantial overlap on pages, including to very obscure ones[13]. Evidence 2: These accounts all add content to Democratic politicians saying "Despite running as a moderate.... they vote X% against Trump", with citations to 538.[14][15] – just ctrl+F "despite running". Evidence 3: similar edit summary language. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:08, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I added a third suspected sock: Belledoll. I'd like to see BWMW checked in relation to Belledoll, an editor whom they've overlapped with on the John Merrill (American politician) [16]. Both BWMW and B add flattering spin, and add mundane trivia to the page. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:54, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
First off, you're trying to claim abuse is being sowed from my account and supposedly that of three others (two accounts, plus an anonymous user), and there is none. One is listed as a retired account over a dispute involving a potential topic-ban (page for state house member) that was never established (with that account being dead for months), and none of your other cited accounts were ever even involved in that discussion nor have ever edited that page (it hasn't been touched in months outside of a minor edit, are you going to rope that account into this too while you're at it? I'm sure you'll annoy and run off more people). The policy clearly states that you shouldn't open up an inquiry on here unless there's been abuse involved. There has been none. This should be closed. I'd ask for it to be moved from hold to closed. Instead, you dragged in four accounts/users for this, just because you didn't like my constructive edits, and you actually stalked me and reverted most of my last two (April, May) months of them. Also, you have a history of running off new editors and pushing your views, so this entire inquiry launched by you is completely ironic on multiple fronts, which you've been called out for by administrators over an extended period of time. I found your talk page history quite telling when I reviewed it for my rebuttal. This really should have no place on Wikipedia. Civility is important. Second, have you heard of copying and pasting a similar statement/reference from another page? It's actually quite common with 538, since the reference has already been filled in, and all three of them have extremely similar backgrounds (all Democratic congresswoman from VA) and voting histories, plus I did modify/support modifications from another editor for one of them. I'm guessing the only supposed abuse you're trying to push onto me is my one-time reversal of your content/section wiping which btw was in part discussed and constructively edited over the last two months (April, May) with another editor. It honestly amazes me how much new editors get pushed around by some people on Wikipedia. Stay safe! Best regards, Semper et Deinceps, Nunquam Retro (talk) 05:56, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

21 July 2020

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]


Evidence (i) In May 2020, the sockmaster was blocked, along with a sockpuppet. Two weeks later, the editor Philotimo made their first edit. (ii) Philotimo has in a short time already overlapped with the sockmaster and puppets[17]. (iii) The overlap on the page of Daniel Gade is pretty much the smoking gun evidence, as it's a page with few edits and the overwhelming share of them this year have been by either Philotimo or confirmed socks/master[18]. (iv) Edit summaries look similar[19][20][21]. See for example the use of the word "flow"[22][23][24][25], which is not exactly a common edit summary. I believe this evidence warrants a check. If shown to be another sockpuppet, I'm curious what additional actions could be taken: it seems to clearly be the case this is a long-term abusive account. I also strongly suspect WP:PAID editing, given the types of edits undertaken. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:37, 21 July 2020 (UTC) Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:37, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The arguments by the sock are ludicrous. As soon as I opened up the editing history of the editor, I knew exactly who he was. I literally opened up the "start a sockpuppet investigation" box before I had even read the specific contributions (the patterns were so obvious from the overview of the contributions). If the story is that they know each other but happen to edit in the exact same way and on the exact same pages (the pages of congressional representatives), that only strengthens the case that they are WP:PAID to edit those pages and are affiliated. I strongly advise the admins not to explain in detail how they spotted the sockpuppetry, as it would give this long-term abuser guidance on how to avoid future detection. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:53, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Last time that a sock was detected in this ring (May 2020), the sock in question gave a big emotional sphiel about how they were not a sock. As User:TonyBallioni concluded, "the intent was to deceive."[26] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:58, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Rouge Man Knows Best" is definitely another sock, see these edits by this user[27][28][29]. In the sockpuppet investigation for other socks, I noted that these socks cite the 538 ratings[30][31].[32] I find it very troubling that this editor seems to systematically go through Minnesota congressional representatives whereas the other socks seem focused on Virginia's congressional representatives. This suggests a systematic and coordinated effort to alter pages. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:00, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

I personally find this ridiculous as edit behavior, edit overlap, and yes edit descriptions are quite different (besides apparently incorporating flow in different ways lol). I don’t see grounds for this. I’m not the same person, and I’m extremely confident that any check will prove it. I travel for work, but I doubt we've got any location overlap. I've got nothing to hide, and I'm fine privately identifying because the idea of paid editing is repulsive to me; my employment isn't remotely tied to WP:NPOV disputes. Philotimo (talk) 22:40, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ST47: I’m not him. We do know each other though and have talked in the past about Wikipedia, but we live in different places and this account is entirely me (it should be obviously with IP addresses, user agents, etc. I’m not sure how we’re supposedly tied together unless its company commuters but mine’s now got inscription on it. I mean we’re even in different states right now). We’ve got a couple of common interests with regards to topics but that’s it. I’ve not been involved with any other accounts besides this one. Just look at the differences between us, I’ve literally stopped a potential edit war from ensuring, he basically did WP:NPOV and had a heated administrators notice board debate which lead to his blocks. I should also note, he appeared to string someone into a Wikipedia discussion in the past as noted in his first sock investigation. I’ve also done extensive vandalism fighting unlike him. Blocks are supposed to not be punitive and they’re imposed to protect the project. How is blocking me, judged on my 100s of edits, actually making this project stronger? I've followed every rule I know on here. I’m willing to privately identify my information. Would I be blocked even if I got him to privately send in IDs to confirm? Is there anyway I can prove my case? I'm at a loss for even being able to be tied to him directly online. If blocked, I'd be unable to even qualify for getting unblocked after six months unless I claim I'm him and own his actions. I'm not sure what to do. Philotimo (talk) 01:36, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

26 March 2022

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

This could to be the most recent sock in a ring of likely WP:PAID editors who focus on the pages of Minnesota politicians. I think this warrants a check for the following reasons: (1) The last confirmed sock was banned in July 2020. Minneaditor made their first edit in November 2021. (2) Similar edit summaries: "word choice",[33][34][35], "title"[36][37], "please" source this[38][39][40], (3) Updating content added by the other socks: [41][42], (4) They edit similar pages. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:48, 26 March 2022 (UTC) Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:48, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

Hello! I am neither related to those Sockpuppets or am a paid editor. There seems to be a mistake here! I have not done any edits either that would warrant such claims. I heavily source all my material and have worked hard to stay an editor in good standing. In short, I am not connected to this Sockpuppeter’s actions. It seems like an awful coincidence that they have similar article they are interest in. I really hope this misunderstanding clears up! Thank you! -Minneaditor (talk) 21:53, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

27 March 2022

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

One day after a sock was blocked, the editor Marshens restored the exact same edit that the blocked sock Minneaditor had previously added. Like Minneaditor, Marshens appears to exclusively edit Minnesota-related pages, in particular those related to Minnesota politics (Marshens has a history of creating AfD discussions for Democratic politicians in Minnesota). However, Marshens had never edited the Scott Jensen (Minnesota politician) until today when they restored Minneaditor's edits[43]. It's hard to see the timing as coincidental. I think this warrants a check. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:01, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

I don't see enough behavioral evidence to connect Marshens to previous socks or to Minneaditor. For example, creating AfDs is not typical of the master or socks. Sharing an interest in Minnesota politics is not enough to demonstrate socking. As for running a check, obviously Marshens and Minneaditor could be compared, but other than CU logs, everything else in this case is stale (unless data was stored on CUwiki). I will nonetheless leave this report open for the time being in case a clerk or checkuser is interested in pursuing this.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:51, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Confirmed to each other:
  • The following accounts are  Technically indistinguishable and I would call confirmed, but I'd like a review of their edits first to make sure:

28 March 2022

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

This editor immediately started to edit the Scott Jensen (Minnesota politician) when a sockupppet ring active on that page was busted. The editor has also edited the Dean Phillips page, which the sockpuppet ring was active on. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:55, 28 March 2022 (UTC) Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:55, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]
  •  Confirmed to each other:
Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 21:57, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

29 March 2022

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

This account appeared immediately after a bunch of sockpuppets were blocked from the Scott Jensen page. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:32, 29 March 2022 (UTC) Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:32, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? What is a "sock puppet"? I have attempted to put a couple minor factual and referenced bits of information on Scott Jensen's page and they have been immediately reverted without discussion. I've not tried to remove the slander against Dr. Jensen that is already there. This is ridiculous, Wikipedia isn't even attempting to be factual on any political page. MinnesotaMuse (talk) 22:43, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

MinnesotaMuse has been editing since December 12, 2021, and has made 11 edits before editing Scott Jensen (Minnesota politician), and all of their edits--including those to Scott Jensen--were well sourced. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:05, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like a situation where an unsuspecting editor made the unfortunate decision to edit an article right when a major edit war/sockpuppet incident was happening. It's highly unlikely that they're part of this, and we should WP:AGF. --1990'sguy (talk) 00:09, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

02 April 2022

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Has been editing four days, and has made just 119 edits, yet they have edited 15 of the same obscure articles as User:Minneaditor, who was blocked three days prior. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:07, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

No need to waste your time any further as I will admit being a sockpuppet of Watch-Me-Work. I was just trying to be helpful and did not come here with any nefarious purposes. I guess I have accidentally turned into being a headache for my fellow editors and will officially retire from Wikipedia in order not to waste any more of your time as all I ever wanted to do is be the best of assistance to the encyclopedia. I wish you all farewell. Minnesota100 (talk) 23:21, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

27 April 2022

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Two accounts, created not only within hours of each other, but within hours of the previous sock being blocked. Identical topic areas, editing patterns, and edit summary styles. And this delightful smoking gun, where RuralRansom added an unnecessary adjective as is typical of this user; upon it being reverted as unsourced, Partisanaffiliation re-added it with a source "like suggested", all but proving the two accounts are the same user. Sable232 (talk) 23:15, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

30 April 2022

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

This account was initially created on 13 October 2021, around the same time as S282890 (talk · contribs). Rbboston made 3 edits and went dormant. Immediately after RuralRansom (talk · contribs) and Partisanaffiliation (talk · contribs) were blocked, Rbboston returned to the same topic areas: Minnesota cities, politicians, and companies like Pillsbury. (See this Editor Interaction Analyser for Rbboston, RuralRansom, and Partisanaffiliation.) While Rbboston generally doesn't leave edit summaries, one summary (Undoing own edit) is similar to two (Undoing my own edit and Undoing my own work) from RuralRansom. Rbboston has also added unnecessary adjectives to leads, something that was pointed out in the previous (archived) report. As this is apparently a prolific WP:PAID sockmaster, I think it would be helpful if a checkuser would look for related accounts. Woodroar (talk) 19:37, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

01 May 2022

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Sleeper account from October just like Rbboston. Re-started editing within minutes of Rbboston being blocked, to articles in the same topic area. This is some sophisticated socking to have sleeper accounts lying around undetectable. For anyone else who finds these socks, it's critical that the edits be reverted regardless of how productive they appear - this has to be paid editing. It's the only logical explanation. Sable232 (talk) 15:25, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

02 May 2022

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Account created within hours of the previous sock being blocked to add the same unsourced "professional marathon runner" nonsense to Jacob Frey that the previous sock added the day before. Sable232 (talk) 03:17, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

Yes, I am a sockpuppet. However, my edits were constructive and should not be reverted unless they break Wikipedia policy, which they do not. Feel free to block me and I will be leaving the platform for good in order to not cause more trouble than I intended— Preceding unsigned comment added by OldManJoey (talk • contribs) 03:59, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]
  •  Confirmed - also;
* EddyFi (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

- Alison talk 06:49, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

03 May 2022

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Another day, another BWMW sock. This one is a sleeper from last November that crawled out of the woodwork within hours of the previous sock being blocked, to edit the same article. Sable232 (talk) 23:39, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

29 May 2022

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

New accounts making the usual edits to Minnesota geography/politics articles (compare e.g. [44][45][46][47]) then jumping into Scott Jensen (Minnesota politician), a favourite of this sockfarm. See [48][49][50]. Spicy (talk) 22:10, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

31 May 2022

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

After about five months of inactivity, the account made its fifth edit to back up two accounts who were later blocked as socks of Buzzards-Watch Me Work. As soon as the accounts were blocked, Beachboiz started adding the same content that MNBug had been adding to the same page. Same editing sphere of Minnesota geography/politics it's been noted this sockfarm edits in. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 16:08, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

04 June 2022

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Sleeper account same as several of the others. Made two edits in August 2021 and then didn't edit again until 21:36 on 31 May - less than 90 minutes after the previous socks were blocked. Same topic area of Minnesota geography and politics. Sable232 (talk) 18:40, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Minneapolishistorian1963, as this account just popped up to "re-add" information to the Minneapolis article. Requesting CheckUser due to the nature of the sockmaster and the rapid creation of new socks. --Sable232 (talk) 00:07, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

Exhausting, disruptive and damaging. After a 3-month wait, we got help with copyediting on June 2 for Minneapolis. These sockpuppets inserted themselves at the most inopportune time imaginable.-SusanLesch (talk) 01:57, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

12 June 2022

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

SotaCarl became active on 8 June, shortly after the last SPI filing, and has the typical editing pattern on Minnesota geography and politics articles, including overlap with previous socks [52][53]. Testerys was already blocked as a sock outside of SPI for obvious reasons; including for the record. Spicy (talk) 19:28, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

21 June 2022

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Editing interests check out, restored similar wording of ″during that era″ which had recently been reverted by previous sock account SotaCarl (talk · contribs) diffs: 1 2. Seems like pretty obvious quacking to me but checkuser can help confirm. --TylerBurden (talk) 12:22, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

22 June 2022

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Five new editors only interested in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Urbanplanner999 picked up discussion from June 4 blocks. The IP engages Bballpapi in pseudo-conversation in edit summaries and on user talk page. Diffs for IP, IP, Bballpapi, Urbanplanner999, 2nd IP. This sock farm drowns out good faith editors. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:41, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a 3rd IP who appeared just now. This sockpuppet has shown interest only in the lead of Minneapolis, over and over. An unconnected editor would try to edit any other part. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:14, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

What a mess, consider WP:RFPP for Minneapolis if that continues to persist. --TylerBurden (talk) 19:33, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

23 June 2022

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Yet another SPA sleeper account restoring socks' preferred version of the lead of Minneapolis, see e.g. [55][56]. Spicy (talk) 10:55, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

26 June 2022

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Sleeper account from December, returning to edit as soon as the last socks were blocked. Editing articles on Minnesota cities and politicians like all the rest. Sable232 (talk) 13:48, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

06 July 2022

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Account created a little over a day after the preceding sock was blocked. Edits are mostly to Minnesota-related locations and people, and editing behavior follows the same pattern. Sable232 (talk) 00:06, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

06 July 2022

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Account created within hours of the previous sock being blocked, to re-add two of the previous sock's edits. [57] [58] CheckUser requested as a matter of course due to the persistent sleeper accounts this user is known for. Sable232 (talk) 21:31, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

09 July 2022

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Immediately restored the sockpuppet's version of Foshay Tower. There have been at least three banned sockpuppets on this article. 1 Then rewrote the lead to the Minnesota article which they have done several times in the past with the same phrases and wording. 2 They were reverted at the Minnesota article several times before popping up with a new IP 3 and have reverted again from the first IP 4. I'm not sure if these are proxies or what but they are very clearly the same editor. Eóin (talk) 01:52, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

(Removing my duplicate report and adding my comments to this one - I didn't see Eóin's report before making mine.) The first IP showed up on Foshay Tower to restore some of the edits of the most recent sock, then promptly went to the Minnesota article to rewrite the lead, as this user often does to articles. After that IP was reverted by three different editors, the second IP came out of nowhere to restore the changes of the first. --Sable232 (talk) 02:12, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a user account that was created immediately after the last IP edit to make a small grammatical edit on Minnesota, and subsequently restore the IP edit. More than suspicious enough given the tenacity of this LTA. --Sable232 (talk) 02:17, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]
  • Dakota Clark is  Confirmed, I'm not going to worry about the IPs. I semi-protected a few of the most commonly edited articles. Aggressive page protection is going to be the right tool in this case. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:10, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

15 July 2022

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Account became active hours after sockpuppet Stenvig2 was confirmed as a sockpuppeteer. Editing in same Minnesota politics sphere (e.g Minnesota DFL page where earlier sockpuppet Minneaditor also edited and Ilhan Omar) and doing similar edits (changes to lead particularly and additions to first line). Overlap on articles also includes JB Pritzker page. CU requested for the usual sleeper check due to the history of this SPI. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 19:08, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

02 August 2022

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Urbanplanning2000, a brand new contributor, just reopened a discussion about Minneapolis, Minnesota. The user name and single edit raise my suspicions. Why would a legitimate account begin editing Wikipedia like this? Pardon me for what could be a premature report. User name is very close to previously blocked sockpuppet User:Urbanplanner999. SusanLesch (talk) 15:23, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

09 August 2022

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Showing up out of nowhere with heavy editing in articles on Minnesota and Minnesota politicians, as is emblematic of this LTA. Checkuser requested as a matter of course for this situation. Sable232 (talk) 02:26, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

02 September 2022

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

IP pops up and starts making the same style of changes to Minnesota-related articles (particularly Scott Jensen, a favourite of this sockfarm). Comparing his changes - this one for example removed references to him spreading anti-vaxx misinformation (like this previous sock and this one too), changing bits in the lead about the subject's views (as also done by this previous sock - also done same in article body re "moderate" views!), and changing info about his medical background (as done by this sock). ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 15:44, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]
  • Yeah, it's them. They also restored sock content here [59][60]. However the IP hasn't edited in several days so a block would not be useful at this point. If there's more suspicious IP editing on the Jensen article I suggest requesting semi-protection. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 20:35, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

06 September 2022

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

On literally its first edit, introducing the same content that was added by a sockpuppet. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 22:26, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

06 September 2022

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Good grief. Minutes after Scott Jensen (Minnesota politician) was ECP'd, this account shows up on the talk page to request restoration of the sock edits [61]. Typical editing pattern of a newer account focused on Minnesota politics and geography articles [62]. Compare username to Mplshistorian57 and Mplshistorian67. Spicy (talk) 23:47, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

05 November 2022

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Back editing Minnesota related articles and ones the previously blocked sock edited on, notably Tim Walz (which was auto-confirmed protected as a result of this sockmaster), Peggy Flanagan and Brad Finstad. Similar enough name to the past sockpuppets and similar style of editing. Seems like a WP:DUCK to me. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 18:10, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

10 November 2022

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Pops up after a year of dormancy after the ban of the most recent sockpuppet to instantly start editing Minnesota pol articles again. Exact same editing style. DUCK. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 14:04, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

10 November 2022

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Not even hours after the last sock was blocked, this one pops up (having been dormant for 12 months similar to the last account) and starts editing on the Tim Walz article (a favourite of this sockfarm) in the exact same editing style as this sockfarm. Yet another DUCK. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 17:28, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

10 November 2022

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Three in one day! After the previous sock was blocked, this one pops up (after a characteristical 12 months of inactivity) to reinstate the sock changes. DUCK. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 22:14, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

12 November 2022

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

A few minutes after Firefly blocked a likely sock IP editing on this page, this account pops up and reinstates the changes straight away. Yet another DUCK. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 16:43, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

13 November 2022

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Another account that after 12 months of inactivity starts editing the same Minneapolis related articles and places, incl the Tim Walz article the other sock had been editing only recently. Duck again. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 20:37, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

26 November 2022

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Identical topic area (Minnesota and Minnesota-related BLPs, often political) and editing patterns. Sleeper account created in 2021; first mainspace edit upon returning was to restore an edit from the most recent sockpuppet. This one is obvious, but CheckUser should be performed given the sockmaster's persistence and prolific use of sleeper accounts. Sable232 (talk) 01:00, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

27 November 2022

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Same as the others - sleeper account from 2021, returning to target the same articles including restoring an edit of the previous sockpuppet. Sable232 (talk) 19:07, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

28 November 2022

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Same modus operandi as the usual socks from this farm - one edit, then pops up a year later to edit the exact same Minnesota politics pages. DUCK. CU requested to find any potential sleepers. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 18:28, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

12 December 2022

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Identical to all the other socks - sleeper account from October 2021, returning to make edits mostly on Minnesota-related articles, with the occasional foray to Florida (as some previous socks have) and national political figures (as previous socks have). CheckUser is a matter of course for this LTA on the off chance that some of the other sleeper accounts are detectable. Sable232 (talk) 02:35, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

13 January 2023

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

New account that immediately goes and edits Minnesota politics-related articles (e.g., Scott Jensen (Minnesota politician)). The new account repeated ([63]) an edit from a previous sock ([64]). EvergreenFir (talk) 16:32, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

14 January 2023

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

As soon as sock TedJerras was blocked, this new account pops up to immediately reinstate the image the blocked sock uploaded for Tim Walz. Earlier edits to Minnesota pages correlate with activity of other blocked socks. (I also suspect the IP address requesting the edits on the Tim Walz talk page is a sock, but I can only report one person at a time with this tool.) ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 02:32, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

I too noticed the IP mentioned above and agree that it's probably a sock, so I've taken the liberty of adding it to the report. --Sable232 (talk) 02:52, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

19 January 2023

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Edit history on only Minnesota articles, and preoccupation with unsubstantial edits to the lead in Minneapolis. SusanLesch (talk) 19:22, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

21 January 2023

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Same topic area and strategy as all the others. CheckUser requested as while this LTA is good at hiding them, sometimes one or two more can be rooted out. The sockmaster has been especially active of late as seen in the SPI archive page. Sable232 (talk) 16:21, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

I am formerly user:SpecteroftheNorth. I am not at all connected to these other users. My old account was blocked as a known mistake. Why are new editors treated like this? --- Post Grammatical talk 16:39, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe because you used my user name and signature to sign? The Banner talk 22:52, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

28 January 2023

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Compare [65] and [66]; fairly obvious sock. Home Lander (talk) 01:41, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

30 January 2023

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Identical behavior to all the others, including restoring an edit of one of the most recent sockpuppets. Sable232 (talk) 02:18, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

05 February 2023

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Brand new account, instantly starts adding photos uploaded by a sockpuppet of B-WMW (DiscoDanner). DUCK test passed. CU requested as another new account recently started editing on Peggy Flanagan, a favourite of this sockfarm, and I'm wary this may also be a sock. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 00:25, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

19 February 2023

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Brand new account restoring image uploaded by sockpuppet of this farm and editing on Minneapolis page, similar to past socks. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 04:45, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

20 February 2023

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

As soon as an account is blocked while changing the image on Peggy Flanagan, this account (much like blocked sock DiscoDanner) uploads an image of Flanagan and makes it the image on article. The common interests in Minnesota and North Dakota make this an obvious DUCK. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 22:27, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

I'm not so sure on this one - the editing pattern doesn't quite line up with the sockmaster's usual tactics. That said, it's not so far off as to be ruled out, and with such a prolific LTA it's probably better to be safe.

I've requested extended confirmed protection for Peggy Flanagan since that article has been a favorite target of the sockmaster going back over a year. --Sable232 (talk) 23:11, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

24 February 2023

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Filing on behalf of SusanLesch / Moved from previously closed report (19 February 2023) -- RoySmith (talk) 16:40, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:FormerlyJace1, a follow on to 7milestoHope, claims to be an old editor of the Minneapolis article who was "moderately involved". I gave a barnstar to every single contributor when it reached FA and did not give one to Jace1. No edit history except the same style of communication on my talk page. Latest interest is in toying with the Minneapolis lead, which has been a preoccupation of this sockpuppet. Quite sure I am wasting my time again talking to Buzzards. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:40, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

03 March 2023

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

New account exclusively with edits to Minneapolis. Editing pattern is similar to previous socks. SusanLesch (talk) 21:28, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

04 March 2023

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

IP editing immediate follow on to closing of yesterday's sockpuppet account (12 minutes later). Edit pattern exclusive to same Minneapolis topics in lead. SusanLesch (talk) 14:30, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Could some kind admin working this area explain why Minneapolis is not protected? Looking at the history here is ridiculous. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:34, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia I've semi-protected it for a (another) year. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:04, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

31 March 2023

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

New account as of March 12. Today made first edits to Minneapolis, to remove the word choice "clout" in the lead. This is about the third time this sockpuppet made that edit. Only other Minneapolis edit was to fool around with the lead, which follows their pattern. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:10, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

21 May 2023

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Same topic area as all of the past socks, with a deep focus on Minnesota politicians and other figures (e.g. Kelly Morrison, a frequently-edited article for this user). CheckUser requested due to the sockmaster's adept use of sleeper accounts. Sable232 (talk) 19:29, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

30 May 2023

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Substantial overlap with previous socks; re-adding photos originally uploaded by previous socks ([67][68][69]); requesting that a page protection necessitated by this sock farm be lifted. Please check for sleepers. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:04, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

31 May 2023

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Only minutes after a sock is blocked, this brand new account is created comes to the talk page of the protected Tim Walz page, a favourite of this sockfarm (and one the blocked sock requested decreased protection for) and starts requesting changes. DUCK, surely. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 01:13, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

09 July 2023

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Account was created May 31st, shortly after the most recent sock of this farm was blocked. It instantly starts editing Wayzata, Minnesota, an article edited by fellow sockpuppet Minnepedia. It then starts adding the same content to Dean Phillips that countless socks from this farm have added, time and time again, as well as editing in the political area this sockfarm edits in, with a similar editing style. As per this sockmaster's modus operandi, it's about as subtle as an elephant in a fridge, and requesting the CU per the obvious passing of this WP:DUCK test. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 20:25, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

23 July 2023

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

As soon as the last sock is blocked, this new one pops up and starts doing what socks from this farm regularly do in adding thousands of characters to Dean Phillips. As obvious as ever, DUCK test is passed. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 23:47, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

24 July 2023

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Same as report above. See below. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:57, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]
AlsoAbelforth claims to have lost the password to their original account, AbelforthJones (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), which would be supported by the logs and would be a valid use of a second account, but then they spent most of this morning WP:GHBH tag-teaming with the third account, and now all are  Blocked and tagged. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:57, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

26 July 2023

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

The day after this account's sockpuppet is blocked, a new one pops up and starts editing Minnesota related pages and the JB Pritzker page (another fave of this sockpuppet). Also worth noting is the edit summary about "not a linkedin profile" on this edit, one used to remove content this sock removed on Tina Smith. DUCK test further passed, requesting CU in case of sleepers. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 00:11, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

30 July 2023

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

As soon as one sock is blocked, this account is created and starts adding back the content the other accounts added to Dean Phillips. Once again, absolutely not subtle and the DUCK test is passed. Requesting CU given the past discoveries of sleeper socks in this farm, and at this stage I'd wonder if it's worth ECPing the Dean Phillips article as this is now at least the NINTH time a sock from this account has gotten back to editing this article and reinserting the same content, even with semi protection in place as it is. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 12:32, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

31 July 2023

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Brand new account popping up with the same hyperfixation on the Phillipses of Minnesota. Made a change to Jeanne Phillips similar to one made by blocked sock TedSmalls, and a change to Pauline Phillips virtually identical to a change TedSmalls made. Once again, blatantly obvious, but requesting CU given the fact there was a sock caught unnoticed. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 13:23, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

27 August 2023

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

The DAY after the last Buzzards sock was blocked (and promised to never return to the project), this account (last used to edit a Minnesota town in 2021 per the usual Buzzards operandi) pops back up. Telltale signs include editing this page, repeatedly edited by socks from this farm and editing that of Tim Walz, a hyperfixation of this page. Requesting CU and also requesting that Tim Walz is again semi-protected, because after six months of protection it's now unprotected and sockpuppetry has continued. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 17:18, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]
Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 20:21, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

30 September 2023

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Brand new account created shortly after the last BWMW sock was blocked. Doing the usual edits on infoboxes of Minnesota politicians - see the edits on Neil Hartigan, which recently blocked sock Kathlye edited, and Rudy Boschwitz edited by fellow sock Mlps77. Also, compare the sock name to fellow blocked sock User:Open story. Requesting CU to be certain of it. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 22:26, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

04 October 2023

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Well, here we are again. Shortly after the last BWMW sock was blocked, this brand new account popped up and started making edits to another Minnesota politician in Tom Emmer: see the parallels between [70] and the edits (prior version, reverted by yours truly) made by another blocked sock to the lede and infobox. Requesting CU in case of any doubts. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 18:14, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

18 October 2023

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

As ever, incredibly obvious modus operandi - brand new account editing the infoboxes of Minnesota politicians such as Neil Hartigan and Peggy Flanagan, two faves of this sockfarm. Also compare past blocked sock name KrisAppleby. DUCK test passed, but CU requested as I have suspicions there's another account being used by this farm atm. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 09:41, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

21 October 2023

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Well, we're back here again. Immediately after Buzzards's last sock was blocked after editing the Neil Hartigan page, this brand new account comes up and adds about 1.6kb worth of content. As ever, the sockmaster makes no attempt to hide it. Once again requesting CU owing to the repeated findings of socks under this farm. Also requesting Neil Hartigan gets ECP'd because it's becoming a honeypot for this sock farm - I can see eight separate socks in the edit history. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 23:50, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

24 October 2023

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

New day, same old sockpuppet tactic, same old lack of subtlety in editing Dean Phillips related articles, yadda yadda yadda. I’m flagging for checkuser just because of the fact this farm has a tendency to have sleepers. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 18:40, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

16 November 2023

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Same obsession with John Morrison (ice hockey, born 1945) and Kelly Morrison, making largely the same edits ([71], [72]) as a preceding sockpuppet (Special:Contributions/KilometersofMark). Sable232 (talk) 22:14, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

20 November 2023

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

As per this sock's usual modus operandi, about as subtle as a flying brick. Makes an edit to Natalie Hudson virtually the exact same as an edit made by a past blocked sock. Then same interest on Steve Simon and Jesse Ventura that past socks have had. Requesting CU as there's another account in the history of the Hudson page that I'm not confident on enough to report in itself but can't rule out for certain. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 21:00, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]
  • LovatoTy is Red X Unrelated, in case you were worried. Given the nature of the IP addresses involved, it's possible I've missed some sleepers. Spicy, you are welcome to email me a specific user you are concerned about. That said, I did look at the involved IP address(es) in a fair amount of detail. --Yamla (talk) 22:34, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10 December 2023

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

The exact same tactics as usual - editing a large amount of positions in the infoboxes of article before returning to an article previously edited in this sockfarm's hyperfixation on Minnesota politics (Mark Dayton, another frequent target). Also created a new draft within two days of creation like the last blocked sock. 99% a duck, but requesting CU in case, and because of the usual form for sleepers. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 19:43, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

26 January 2024

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Shortly after the protection on this page expired, brand new account makes an edit to Neil Hartigan to add almost the *exact* same content a a blocked sock did. As ever with this sockmaster it's painedly WP:DUCK territory, but requesting CU due to the tendency of this farm to have multiple on the go at once. I'd also like to request an ECP of Neil Hartigan for a longer period due to it being an all-powerful magnet for socks. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 09:03, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

28 January 2024

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Same day as their other sock is blocked, this account returns to edit Wayzata, Minnesota and Caroline Kennedy, two favourites of this farm. This is such a DUCK case I'm not going to bother requesting CU. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 13:11, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

10 February 2024

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Making some similar changes to the infobox that a blocked sock made. Because it's a brand new account that instantly jumps to edit this page I'm inclined to believe it's another BWMW sock, but requesting CU due to the not instantly damning evidence. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 21:16, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

16 March 2024

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

SPA NewWaveees created 12 March, and straight away precociously recreated David L. Hartigan (last created by blocked sock User:KillBill567) at Draft:David L. Hartigan (Chicago politican). This draft was declined on 13 March, so sock recreated it at Draft:David L. Hartigan (American politican). I've just accepted that draft, and only then noticed its problematic history. Wikishovel (talk) 10:04, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

25 March 2024

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Like a dog to its own vomit, thus returns Buzzards to the same articles they were editing on another sock. Compare the change to the infobox made by this sock and this sock to this one. Also editing Tad Jude, compare this edit to this blocked sock edit. Not quite DUCK territory so requesting CU, but also because of this farm's unquenchable love for sleeper accounts. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 20:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

29 March 2024

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]


Requesting immediate protection that was removed on March 4. -SusanLesch (talk) 13:42, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Protection requested at WP:RPP. Wikishovel (talk) 13:48, 29 March 2024 (UTC) (lurking)[reply]

Hmmm. Something's fishy about this, but this doesn't strike me as Buzzards' usual modus operandi; if is the case, it's a departure from the usual methods. Worth a CU check anyway. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 21:15, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reminds me of User:Marshens with the affable personality. Another editor thought these could be AI bots. Whoever they are, their proposal is not helpful. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:42, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi there, I’m Apurnuh and I’m just a student at UMN twin cities. Editing a Wikipedia page and learning the part of the process is our homework for social computing class. It if unfortunate that I got banned since my edits were substantial and @SusanLesch did take information from my edits like sister cities and farmers markets. I was only doing my homework. I am not sure who the other 3 people are but it seems like they are classmates from the same class as me. It is interesting how they posted a “game plan” but that’s because we were supposed to edit for this homework over a course of 2 weeks and they decided to edit a big chunk on the day this homework was due leading to Susan banning them and assuming that they are “derivatives” of me because we have the same bio page but that’s because we’re from the same university and I just started the homework really early. This is really disappointing because I learnt from the process of editing and did not mean any harm. Apurnuh (talk) 13:21, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, Apurnuh. First, nobody banned you. You are welcome to continue editing and I hope you do. I apologize for jumping to the wrong conclusion. That's my mistake, not yours. I think you did a good job on your homework. You're right, you found substantive additions. Well done. You weren't given good instructions, and that's not your fault either.
  • Thank you for the explanation here, you helped everyone greatly! We'll see if the other three accounts respond. Again, I'm sorry for my mistake. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:01, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

15 May 2024

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Same sort of editing to pages related to Minneapolis, Minnesota politics, the Pritzkers and American politics as a whole that every other obvious sock in this obvious farm have gone for. CU requested to be sure. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 13:41, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

02 August 2024

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

It's usually a sign of something weird going on when an editor's very first action is to create a 160k page. Anyway, this article has returned to the usual Illinois/Minnesota/general US pol edits with similar infobox edits to the usual Buzzards pages. The selling point for me was this edit request to Neil Hartigan, a page that had to be protected due to constant editing by socks. Requesting CU in case. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 16:36, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

07 August 2024

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

I had a sort of gut feeling that one of his hyperfixations getting the VP nod would bring Buzzards rapidly back to sockpuppeting, and looking at this account I get the feeling I may have been right. The usual tracks are all there - brand new account that instantly starts editing Minnesota politics pages (specifically infoboxes) and similar username style to the regular BWMW socks. CU endorsed for any avoidance of doubt. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 18:11, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

 Confirmed:

Spicy (talk) 18:15, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Buzzards-Watch_Me_Work/Archive&oldid=1239177900"