This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference. Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump.
CAUTION
The suspected sockpuppets page and the requests for CheckUser page have been merged into Sockpuppet investigations (SPI). SPI is designed to make the process of dealing with sockpuppets much easier, by using one central page for all sockpuppet discussion, rather than fragmented discussion between SSP and RFCU. SPI is very similar to both of these, so users of these pages should find SPI familiar. In addition to the merging of both pages, the RFCU and SSP shortcuts will also be redirected to the new SPI page and the current processes will be discontinued. The co-ordination page for this is at Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations.
The suspected sock puppets page is where Wikipedians discuss if a fellow Wikipedian has violated Wikipedia's policy on sock puppets. Cases on this page are evaluated primarily on the basis of behavioral evidence, and the editors and administrators who look at the reports typically do not have the ability to determine what IP addresses Wikipedia editors are using. If you believe your case requires an IP check, please go to requests for checkuser.
Sometimes users who appear to work with a common agenda are not sockpuppets (one user, multiple accounts), but multiple users editing with the sole purpose of backing each other up, often called "meatpuppets." Meatpuppets are not regular Wikipedians who happen to agree with each other; they are accounts set up by separate individuals for the sole purpose of supporting one another. For the purposes of upholding policy, Wikipedia does not distinguish between meatpuppets and sockpuppets. Please see Wikipedia:Sock puppetry.
The problem is current; if the suspected sock puppets have not edited recently, the case will likely be closed as stale. If the problem is not ongoing, just watch the user and report when you see a new instance of abuse.
You have strong evidence. To learn what can be evidence, see here. If your evidence is weak, then it will be nearly impossible to reach a determination of sockpuppetry. All your statements should be supported by diffs.
The sockpuppet account you suspect is not already blocked.
The sockpuppet account you suspect is not already reported. Look through open SSP cases for usernames frequently associated with your suspect. Both older and newer cases, many of whose accounts are now blocked, show up in the categories for sockpuppeteers, sockpuppets, and suspected sockpuppets.
Assume good faith, if possible. An alternate account that is not used for abuse does not warrant a complaint. Keep in mind that users may sometimes make mistakes, so in cases where an alternate account is largely used for legitimate activities, it may be appropriate to ask the user before making accusations. The problem might merely have been caused by a mistaken login or other absent-mindedness.
Fill in the names. Clicking "Start a case" with a new case name-or-number opens a fresh page, with a form ready to be filled in. The puppetmaster's name will be automatically filled in as the filename; if this is not correct, due to added numbers like "(2nd)", replace the {{SUBPAGENAME}} tags with the puppetmaster's username. Also replace the placeholder names SOCKPUPPET1 and SOCKPUPPET2 with the account names of the suspected puppets; add or delete these lines as needed. Always leave out the "User:" prefix.
Make your case. Now write up your evidence in the "Evidence" section. This should describe why you believe there's puppetry occurring, however obvious it might be. If this is not the first time the user is suspected, links to other cases you know about should be provided as well. The evidence should point to one or more instances of illegitimate use of the puppet account. Include the diffs to support your statements. Sign and timestamp your case with ~~~~ on the line below "Report submission by"; preview your report for any problems; and, when you're satisfied, save it.
To start a case report about suspected sockpuppetry:
Cases are created on subpages of Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets. To do so, add the username of the puppetmaster (the main account, not the sockpuppet!) -- and the number of the case, "(2nd)", "(3rd)", etc., if there were previous cases on that username -- into the box below. Leave out the "User:" prefix. Replace only the word PUPPETMASTER, leaving the rest as is.
Example: if there were already two cases about User:John Doe, the new case would be titled: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/John Doe (3rd)
Then click "Start a case". You will be taken to a page where you can fill out the report. After you've saved the report, come back to see the remaining instructions below this box.
List your case for review in the WP:SSP open cases section here. Add the line {{Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/PUPPETMASTER}} (or PUPPETMASTER (2nd) or PUPPETMASTER (3rd), etc.) at the top of the list, just below the section header. (Again, remember to replace PUPPETMASTER with the actual account name, without the "User:" prefix.) Save your edit. Check to see that your report shows up at the top of the list, just below the "Open cases" header. If there's only a red link, check that the spelling of the username and the number match the filename you created.
Notify the suspected users. Edit the user talk pages (not the user pages) of the suspected sockpuppeteer and sock puppets to add the text {{subst:uw-socksuspect|1=PUPPETMASTER}}~~~~ at the bottom of the talk page. If this is not the first time the user is suspected, the most recent evidence page should be specified by adding "(2nd)" or "(3rd)", etc., after the user's name: {{subst:uw-socksuspect|1=PUPPETMASTER (2nd)}}~~~~ or similar.
Consequences. If the evidence shows a case of clear abuse, with no serious doubt, an administrator may block any sockpuppets, and take further action against the puppetmaster. In less severe cases, administrators may quietly monitor the account's activities.
Checking further. In some cases, where there is significant abuse and yet puppetry is not certain, it might be appropriate to use technical means to detect puppetry. See Requests for checkuser (WP:RFCU) for details.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
Pretty self-evidently the same person, but since they're IPs there's no point in blocking them. When they pop up trying to subvert debates or otherwise breaching policy, probably quicker to highlight the issue there and then. GbT/c19:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
Fairly blatantly obvious sockpuppetry coming from the Aurora Publishing house which is suddenly using Wikipedia as an advertising formula, creating entries for all of its unnotable series, reverting tagging and clean ups of those new articles, etc. Initial account warned of COI issues and is self-admitted Aurora employee copy/pasting the promo material they wrote here.[5] See Aurora Publishing history and the numerous articles created by each. Also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga#Aurora Publishing review for the alert and discussion at the project about these accounts. There may be other accounts as well and source IP probably needs blocked if they are all the same.
Comments
This may be more meatpuppetry then sockpuppetry. But at least we should rule out the sockpuppetry. The thing that concerns me the most is that these accounts limit their editing to the articles related to this one publisher and insert the publisher's name promently into the article leads even when the original Japanese publishers' names are absent. --Farix (Talk) 16:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Accusation and Evidence
I am fairly new as a editor on Wikipedia, just started my account this week. I find it amusing that I would be automatically deemed an employee or a conspirator for Aurora Publishing for submitting entries. All I did basically was try to add references to each title, edited some of the text to make it sound a little better and have it be more informative. I have no idea who the Fujoshi Sisters are. I have no idea it was a crime to be editing the page at the same time as someone else or even to stop at the same time. I'm sure coincidences does occur, but if it relates to this company something is up. I understand the idea of being accurate and factual but I think it's discriminating to this company when as far as I can see looking at other manga publishing wiki pages such as, Yen Press, Go! Comi, and Digital Manga Publishing who all should be deleted because they are more or less constructed the same way. I honestly do not see what is wrong with listing title of the series they published. I'm sure that who ever did list the titles before was just trying to inform those that would look up the company what titles they have released. And really just looking at the publishers I listed probably structure the Aurora Publishing page the same way. (User talk:Mizuki0066) 11:35 PST January 9 —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]
And its pure coincidence that you are all making the exact same kinds of edits in seeming support of one another, blatantly promoting/spamming Aurura links, reverting project attempts to clean up the inappropriate edits, etc? Even your response sounds similar. Fujoshi sisters claimed to just be a fan at first, before their edits were tagged WP:COPYVIO, then they admitted they were from Aurora and had written then summaries themselves so claimed it was okay. If you aren't part of the group (which can be determined through checkusers and other tools), then I suggest stepping back until its cleared up, and using the time to learn about proper referencing (you don't pile 2-5 links in a single ref tag), and what a proper reference is: see WP:RS and WP:CITE. Reviewing WP:MOS-AM would also be good if you intend to work on series articles. Pointing to three very bad company articles doesn't really support continuing to do it. No one said other company articles are perfect, as they all need work, but new advertising ones don't help. -- Collectonian (talk·contribs) 22:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Adding LittleOrangeAlien (talk·contribs) - another sock editing primarily Aurora articles, and then editing on the Anime project page to change MeowKuroNeko's signature to their own, claiming the remark.[7] within minutes of it being left by the first account.[8] Considering the number of socks continuing to appear, it might be good to do a check user to find the underlying IP(s) and block those as well. Aurora is obviously determined to use Wikipedia for an advertising forum. -- Collectonian (talk·contribs) 05:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Spammers now blocked. Any admin is welcome to unblock if the risk can be shown to be removed, but at the moment the accounts do not seem interested in anything other than inappropriate promotional activity, are not showing any signs of heeding the multiple notes that should have raised red flags for them, so blocking is the obvious way to stop it. Guy (Help!) 18:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
The two accounts inhabit the same articles dealing with music, in particular specific articles on concert tours, singles, and albums. Their edit summary comment styles are similar, as is their usual aversion to explaining their edits in talk pages. The Alkclark account is used to make initial large-scale edits to articles; if other editors object, the 64.140.0.3 account comes in and makes reversions and/or rude comments in support of the Alkclark edits. One recent example of this involves the Viva la Vida Tour article, where Alkclark started making large-scale changes here ; admin User:Madchester objected to some of the changes, including a reversion of Alkclark here; then 64.140.0.3 was used to revert it back here, and then 64.140.0.3 was used to leave this rude and harrassing message at Madchester's talk page, using the language "your little pet project". This is an example of the common phrases Alkclark/64.140.0.3 use, see for example Alkclark using "personal pet" in this edit here regarding an IfD discussion. Another recent example relates to the Soul2Soul II Tour article. Alkclark begins by making widespread changes that remove much of the material here. I object, keep some of his/her changes but restore other part of the article here, and start a discussion on the talk page. Alkclark refuses to engage on the talk page, but instead has 64.140.0.3 twice revert the article to his/her version with this edit and this edit.
That these are the same person is even more evident once you go further back in their histories. There have been many complaints and warnings against 64.140.0.3 that it just removes from its talk page (see all the "Blanked the page" edits in here). More importantly, 64.140.0.3 also been used to delete complaints and warnings from Alkclark's talk page, see for example here and here. And in the highest violation of WP:SOCK, 64.140.0.3 has pretended to be a third party in a dispute between Alkclark and another editor, for example here and here, or for a more recent example here where 64.140.0.3 not surprisingly "agrees with" a previous talk page post by Alkclark. No amount of "I didn't realize I wasn't logged in" excuses can explain away this long history of improperly acting in concert.
Finally, I'm not convinced that the 64.140.0.3 IP address is shared by multiple users, as its User talk:64.140.0.3 banner suggests. The first edits suggesting this were from 64.140.0.3 itself in the middle of an edit dispute, see here and here. The banner was then put on by an apparently sincere other editor here. There definitely aren't "14 current Wiki Editors" at that IP address, as 64.140.0.3's original post suggested; all or almost all the edits from 64.140.0.3 look like they come from this one person.
Evidence that they are the same person can be seen by looking at their last 500 edits, here for Alkclark, here for Dancefloor royalty and here for KM*hearts*MC. They inhabit the same sets of articles, and all got involved in prolonged disputes over KylieX2008 and various Madonna tour articles. Their edit summaries are very similar, including use of abbreviations such as "addtl", "b/c", "pls" and so forth.
Moreover, they all have the unusual tic of looking up IP addresses' providers or origins and adding the {{SharedIP}} or {{ISP}} banner template to talk pages of IP users. See here and here and here for Dancefloor royalty doing it. See here and here and here for KM*hearts*MC doing it. See here for Alkclark doing it. See here for 64.140.0.3 doing it.
As evidence that these accounts are acting in collaboration, looking at this history, KM*hearts*MC's very first edit ever was here was to "agree" with Alkclark and Dancefloor royalty on a talk page. Two of the three along with 64.140.0.3 posted in agreement with each other on this AfD. They ganged up on User:Jwad in disputes over the Madonna tour articles, as witness a number of posts on User talk:Jwad and in this Request for Arbitration, in which Alkclark pretended to be a neutral player between Dancefloor royalty and KM*hearts*BC on one side and Jwad on the other. They make appeals to uninvolved editors pretending to be different people, see here and here for example. This is all one person, using sockpuppets to abuse process and abuse other editors on these articles.
Comments
Firstly, It's my high belief that editor Wasted Time R, is somehow upset because I corrected his/her edits. To first begin, the IP address 64.140.0.3 belongs to Level 3 Communicationsshown here, an internet provider for the private sector, meaning it is used to businesses and not the common household such as Comcast. Although this site proclaims the address belongs to Colorado Christian University. Upon contacting the phone number provided by Whois (1-877-453-8353), the address belongs to a business center in Denver, CO, further information was not given to me. So I am assuming this could belong to a hotel, apartment building or public place that allows internet access. I have logged into Wiki from work in the past, but I am not sure what that location's IP address is. Additionally, the IP address has been engaged in editing Wikipedia since November 2005. I have not been editing since April 2007, although I've done a few edits here and there in July 2006 to LeAnn Rimes related articles. My account has over 1000 edits while this IP address has barely 500. If an account is used for sock puppetry, history has shown that it is used more often. Another point is all of my edits are music-based. This IP address has edited articles concerning a broad range of subjects, not just one specific area. Additionally, this is a shared IP as shown herehere and here. Concerning this editor's evidence:
Point 1 As you can see from my edit summary, I reverted the edits of User:Ilikeeggs1, who added flag icons to the Tour dates table, as my edit summary stated flags not needed. User:Madchester reverts changes made to the set list, not the tour dates. If Madchester disagreed with my edits then the opening acts, corrections to venue names and box office score data would have been removed as well.
Soul2Soul II Tour Point 2 The article was very cluttered and unorganized. There were sections that were direct cut/paste from the source. Additionally, the writing appeared to be "fluffed up" fan writing, almost promoting tour. Providing edit summaries that stated "restore large amounts of cited material, removed without any explanation whatsoever - it's this material that helped the article survive AfD!!" is not sufficient reasoning to include information. Being the highest grossing tour of 2006 in North America (and providing a source) is sufficient information for not deleting the article. Additionally, using such language as referenced above convinces me that the edits were done out of spite due to a personal connection either with the article or with the subjects, meaning a conflict of interest. Starting a discussion two days after I made my edits and additionally not notifying me of such discussion so that I could partake or at least acknowledging it in his edit summaries seems very suspicious to me. This matter was brought to the attention of Wasted Time R by Madchester due to the IP address mentioned above and the Viva La Vida Tour. I don't revamp articles in 10 minutes, it takes time. I take the time to the read the article, read each source, check for dead links and verifiability. I read each source seeing if there is additional information to add. While working on the Soul2Soul Tour, I found out about solo tours by Tim McGraw and followed by adding a solo tour chron for him. When I went to add the template to the Soul2Soul II Tour, thats when I saw that information had been re-added as mentioned above. Wasted Time R had ample time to ask me about my edits via my talk page if he felt dissatified with them.
Point 3 Disputes: This I cannot comment on, I cannot remember minuscule details about edits conducted nearly two years ago. If someone removed content from my page (as they did not blank my page as the editor noted) then its all in the past, I really don't have time to think about things that happened so long ago.
I do admit that I am not perfect and I have ran into problems with other editors but this is utterly ridiculous.I have contributed significantly to Wikipedia and will continue to do so, despite this setback. This user is claiming guilt by association. I'm sure I can pick any IP address and a user name and dig deep enough and find 3 similarities. I have no problems expressing my opinions to any editor and do not need to hide behind a mask to do so. Alkclark (talk) 05:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
I agree with the submitter's analysis that abuse of multiple accounts is taking place. For your review, check out this analysis of contribution times for three of the above accounts:
This shows almost perfect non-overlap of editing sessions between Alkclark, 64.140.0.3 and Dancefloor royalty. Notice all three of these editors warring against Madchester's changes at Viva la Vida Tour. If Alkclark does not want to let us know what is really going on, I propose that a checkuser be run. EdJohnston (talk) 15:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Use of this form is deprecated. Please use Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations.