Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pleaschamp/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Pleaschamp

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

31 August 2017

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]
  • All four accounts are SPAa created in the span of 10 minutes on May 27th. The characteristic behaviour involves creating a one-line draft for a BLP or ORG and then very quickly expanding it over 10+ edits. The articles share a similar formatting and referencing style.
  • Diffs:
    • Jamesknock21: [1]
    • Pleaschamp: [2]
    • Judahpure: [3]
    • Crestacts: contributions deleted

-- Rentier (talk) 15:43, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

Its a minor overlap in MO and behavior to be sure, but the BLP edits are similar enough that if there was a technical match to SamRustic, I wouldn't consider it a false positive. @Ponyo and Deskana: how confident are we that the technical data links SmartRustic and Gemohadur? TonyBallioni (talk) 13:05, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Soulsider fits the user page pattern, which if these socks have one, fits one of a few very specific formats. For comparison here are three similar CU confirmed to the initial sockfarm [11] [12] [13].
    Ponyo, sorry for all the pings, but could you tell us which accounts in the BS archive these overlap with technically? On BurritoSlayer we've had several groups of socks unrelated to the initial finding, but which were related to one another or blocked behaviorally despite being unrelated technically. This could help us further figure out that UPE operations MO and assess the behavioral evidence here. Thanks for all your work. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:17, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Smartse and Ponyo: just noting here that we have another likely BurritoSlayer sock at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BurritoSlayer. Behavioral evidence in terms of edit summary and userpage also aligns with the socks above. They might have changed VPN providers by now compared to these, but probably worth checking against. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:22, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

 Confirmed that the following accounts are related:

It's  Possible that Judahpure is related to Crestacts, but the evidence is kind of contradictory at parts. The ranges are quite busy, and there appear to be a lot of unrelated accounts on it, so I'm leaving this request open for a second opinion and a deeper scour. If no-one else gets around to it in the mean time, I'll come back and do it later. --Deskana (talk) 09:49, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Relisted - GABgab 16:41, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This looks like a clear case of WP:PAID. The two accounts I checked, Crestacts and Jamesknock21, were exclusively using webhosts to edit, which, given the overlap, cannot be a coincidence. Although  Stale, I can see from when Deskana made his check that Judahpure and Pleaschamp were also editing exclusively through webhosts. Again, this is unlikely to be a coincidence. There is technical overlap with Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BurritoSlayer/Archive, which is a wormhole of paid editing, so that could very well be what we're looking at. I would take a good behavioural look at the following accounts as well (with an eye to the BurritoSlayer connection):
Group one:
Group two:
  • @TonyBallioni: Again, the checkuser tool is only so useful when it comes to these vast farms operating solely from VPNs/webhosts with multiple devices and browsers at their disposal. Group 1 was uncovered based on my check of Jamesknock21 and it is this same group that the BurritoSlayer account popped up, so I dug deeper and found the rest of the accounts listed in Group 1. Group 2 was uncovered based on my check of Crestacts.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:07, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately after the long delay in dealing with this SPI many of the accounts have not edited for a long time, so actions taken now may have little or no effect. Nevertheless, in those cases where there is clear evidence of sockpuppetry the accounts may as well be blocked, partly for the record and partly in case they ever do try to return to editing.
  • As far as the four accounts for which this investigation was originally opened are concerned, the behavioural evidence is strongly suggestive, and taking the coincidence of use of web hosts into account too I have blocked the accounts.
  • ClarckArt and Robharrison12 are obviously the same person. Even though the amount of behavioural evidence is tiny, it is such a perfect match that combined with ChekUser evidence of a connection it is too much of a coincidence to be anything else, so I have blocked those accounts.
  • Gemchadur is difficult. Since, unlike most of the accounts mentioned, this one is still active, a clear verdict would be worth while, but a clear verdict doesn't seem to be possible. There are so many indications of possible connections to other accounts that I can't be comfortable in dismissing the concerns of sockpuppetry. However, the amount of behavioural similarity is not great enough to be confident in saying that this is another sockpuppet. On balance I think the most likely explanation is SmartSE's suggestion that it is "an attempt to create a good hand for ulterior uses later on", in which case Gemchadur should be blocked. However, there is enough room for doubt that I reluctantly agree with Deskana and SmartSE that we have to give the benefit of the doubt. Since this investigation has been open for not far short of seven months, and there has been no contribution at all for more than six months (apart from an exhortation to close it) the likelihood of anyone coming up with anything better now is remote, so I am closing it. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:53, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Pleaschamp/Archive&oldid=1079534401"