Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/あすぺるがあすぺしゃりすと/Archive

< Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations | あすぺるがあすぺしゃりすと


あすぺるがあすぺしゃりすと

15 March 2024

edit

Suspected sockpuppets

edit

...Wow, OK, I'm going to do this in parts because it's breaking the template...

Non-obvious ducks here:

The first three socks (ਗੈਪ ਹੈ, Упгаз, ጋዝሉፔ) are tagged incorrectly and should be tagged to this case.

سپئا has a very similar username to a previous sockpuppet, سپئاە.

އަޕެގަރްޒުއާ އެވެ ("Apegaruza is") is probably an anagram of Asperger's and it's unlikely for anyone to register a Dhivehi name on the English Wikipedia.

AspergerNext is the oldest account tagged to Bulut on jawiki.

Everything else either is a WP:DUCK (editing their talk page), has some form of "Aspe" in their name, or is a rearrangement of previous usernames.ClumsyOwlet (talk) 02:38, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

...I'm going to try again and replace the above with the non-stale accounts so the CheckUser request will work. ClumsyOwlet (talk) 03:29, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
More showing up now. ClumsyOwlet (talk) 16:49, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Four more. ClumsyOwlet (talk) 14:25, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
More. ClumsyOwlet (talk) 01:57, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for checking this, HJ Mitchell.
Another list: 褪伝北, 豈攣北2024, 豈攣北'24, アスペ2024, アスペ'24, Aspe'24, 褪伝北2024. ClumsyOwlet (talk) 15:55, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Back again with That was fast! ClumsyOwlet (talk) 03:54, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


  Clerk assistance requested: While this is still here, could a clerk move this entire case to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aspespeshatist? Aspespeshatist (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) is the oldest account. ClumsyOwlet (talk) 04:18, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oldest should be ja:特別:投稿記録/Bulut, as with the LTA case name. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 10:12, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I meant the oldest attached to enwiki. ClumsyOwlet (talk) 13:38, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why? This is just wasting actions for no reason. There are many archive pages, and it isn't worth it IMO. I don't know if anyone else feels the same way, so I will leave the clerk request. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 13:44, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aspespeshatist would be easier to type (in English) than あすぺるがあすぺしゃりすと. ClumsyOwlet (talk) 13:54, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Copying and pasting is easier and quicker than typing either, so that isn't a convincing argument. Also, what's the point in wasting time and trouble over such matters as which is the best title for this, when it has already been said and agreed by several administrators that there is no point spending any time or effort on this sockpuppeteer. My advice is to just forget about this case, and spend time on more useful tasks. JBW (talk) 18:40, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Closing. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 13:01, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

@HJ Mitchell: I don't know if all of those are ASPE. ファンウィジョは終わったな, 横山輝, マイペースなナマケモノ, 山田っち, 鶯乃理子, ぶるんぶるん, なもなも, 田中公侍|通りすがり69, 杉咲真尋, 大岡暁都, Issokiso, 長雄, 喵小爱, 嵯峨日暮, はにかむ幸三, にしざわけ, ジミー・北アイルランド, 小本祐紀, 臥龍點睛, and E5489 don't seem like ASPE's usernames (along with about 40 other accounts in the block log), and 青山貴弘, エオウプ, Сунгирь, 火乃狐 don't act like ASPE. Some in the log have also been blocked on itwiki. Can these be checked against ISECHIKA (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) and their sockpuppets? ClumsyOwlet (talk) 16:32, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's always possible you've got two sock farms on overlapping IPs, especially considering the proxy use. You can tell from the timings that the blocks were in clusters; each cluster roughly corresponds to one IP or range which in turn was detected by checking one of the accounts in the list above. For example, all the accounts blocked at 16:06 UTC would have been on one IP or range which they shared with ޕައެރޖަރއެސްވެސް, listed above. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
網走本線 can probably be blocked again, along with 200z, Class801, East South West North, Ferrovia della Mendola, Geography Tora, HaussmannSaintLazare, Mythomania, NiceDay, Orchestra della Toscana, Route163, SlamDoorTrain, Strausseefähre, Subalternité, クライスラー・ビルディング, ゲーンマッサマン, スネーフェル登山鉄道, ツバル, デイナイスホテル東京, トレモントストリートサブウェイ, ニコライ3世, ハシュリ, リゴール, 不老温泉, 小林敬和, 掃除大臣, 東京木場ホテル, 田代ダム, 箕面新町, 築地川, 船橋鉄道, 대장금이보고있다, ラースロー勤労者党外務書記, Hutomi isikari, The Copper Beeches, The Lizard's Tail, Душан Тадић, Jayawijaya Mountains, SUW2000, Gara Baia Mare, JSR94, あでぃふ, ンガミ湖, Reiwa period, Süd-Russisches, Yoti Touge, Amanokongou, and Inuyama Railwaystation. According to this, they are sockpuppets of Suzukitaro (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). You haven't caused any trouble, EPIC. ClumsyOwlet (talk) 16:59, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did show up in any checks? They're DUCKS. (I've removed the checkuser template from some of the above comments because the template is now broken.) ClumsyOwlet (talk) 17:21, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Global lock(s) requested. ClumsyOwlet (talk) 21:45, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ClumsyOwlet your second list are all   Stale so they didn't show up in any checks. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:12, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Some are only from December... ClumsyOwlet (talk) 23:13, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. The data lasts for 90 days, which takes us to about 3 January. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:26, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So many CheckUsers have said so many things... I've seen everything from 6 months to 30 days. Courcelles was able to find 睿鶵哬睿 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) on February 28. ClumsyOwlet (talk) 23:30, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They have to have logged into the account within 90 days. If they had, they presumably would have shown up in the checks I did. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:35, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Responding to what JBW said (sorry, I haven't been on my desktop in a bit) - I'm absolutely fine with letting them go upstate to a nice farm and living out the rest of their life in peace. Assuming they continue as they are - doing whatever they may be doing, and not causing significant mainspace disruption - I'll drop this stick. Thank you all for the work you've put into this and time spent on this, as annoying as it probably was. Should this page be blanked per DENY, or just get the fat trimmed off? Schrödinger's jellyfish ✉ 02:34, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

edit
  • I have come here because I am investigating an unblock appeal for みたら on UTRS. The editor claims to be an innocent unrelated user caught by the block. So far they have edits on Japanese Wikipedia and on Wikidata, but not on English Wikipedia. The account was globally locked, but has now been unlocked, as explained above by EPIC. Unfortunately, checking numerous pages on Japanese Wikipedia via Google translate is far too troublesome for me to do anything remotely like enough checking to reach any conclusion, but I have seen nothing which looks to me as though it connects this account to any of the others that I have looked at. Also nobody on Japanese Wikipedia has, so far as I can see, raised any question of sockpuppetry. The evidence of abuse on en.wikipedia is nill, as the account has never edited. That leaves only the CU evidence, which must be regarded as inconclusive, as HJ Mitchell & Blablubbs read it differently. Under those circumstances I believe we have to assume good faith and unblock. The same may or may not apply to other accounts listed here, but I have not checked any others. JBW (talk) 19:38, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @JBW if it helps, I am also rather unsure about lots of these blocks. I've not had a chance to review them in depth, but I trust Blablubbs to the point that if he says a CU block is 'unsafe' it probably is. firefly ( t · c ) 19:44, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I was pinged here, so I will also say that I support unblocking the accounts which are not likely to be related. EPIC (talk) 19:48, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No apology necessary from you, Epic. I apologise to you for creating unnecessary work. I should have global contributions and I've unblocked all the accounts (except 青山貴弘) that Blablubbs has questioned above. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:09, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It’s less checking global contribs and more that the ranges involved here can be busy and have accounts scattered all over them. I would personally be hesitant to block any account that comes up but that doesn’t exhibit the characteristic behaviour and technical profile of the sockmaster. firefly ( t · c ) 21:22, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the comment posted above by Blablubbs at 19:28, 24 February 2024 UTC is seriously worth considering. This person typically makes a couple of talk page edits and then abandons the account. It is very likely that they never come back to that account, and therefore never even know that it's been blocked, and even if they do know, it achieves nothing, as they weren't going to edit with the account anyway, blocked or unblocked. Therefore the best possible outcome from filing SPI reports, investigating the accounts, and blocking them, is to waste a lot of time for all of us, taking us away from more useful tasks; it will be even worse if we also cause collateral damage to other users. Either way, no benefit whatsoever can come from blocking an account which wasn't going to edit again anyway, or from deleting trivial and pointless but harmless edits to talk pages which have often already been blanked anyway. I would echo what Blablubbs said, but more forcefully: we really should just ignore this person, rather than expending time and work on it. (For what it's worth, I eventually came to this conclusion after having wasted much of my own time blocking hundreds of accounts, and deleting their edits, over a period of I don't know how many years.)
NOTE: For some reason my mentions of other editors to notify them were not displaying properly in my browser. I have no way of knowing whether they successfully notified the editors or not, so I am repeating them. If this leads to duplicate pings, then please accept my apologies.
NOTE: Well, they still didn't display properly, either on my computer or on my phone. This is my last try to get them to display, and I'm making no more attempts to notify the editors concerned.JBW (talk) 16:00, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • +1 to everything JBW says here. firefly ( t · c ) 14:31, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree and have said as much before. There's another case that's very much like this one, where someone creates an account, publishes a draft containing some nonsense sentence such as "Purple cows eat exquisite locomotives", and then never edits again. Because these users are so prolific and easy to spot, some editors seem to take great pride in cataloguing every one of their socks and requesting CU investigations. But this does nothing to prevent disruption and arguably it creates it by consuming the SPI team's time and providing the sockmaster with attention. The ranges aren't blockable. The behaviour usually isn't disruptive in itself. One good thing about this case in particular is that I find it fun to check. But I don't believe that I'm accomplishing anything useful when I block 50 accounts that do nothing but create a talk page that no one would have seen if they weren't specifically looking out for this sock. Spicy (talk) 15:56, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gsthae with tempo! and yes, goes for that one too. firefly ( t · c ) 16:48, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 00:59, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

29 April 2024

edit

Suspected sockpuppets

edit

  Looks like a duck to me Leonidlednev (T, C, L) 03:57, 29 April 2024 (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

Already globally locked, but the following are   Confirmed to this account:

Will request locks on them too, closing. Girth Summit (blether) 09:38, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

29 May 2024

edit

Suspected sockpuppets

edit

  Looks like a duck to me Leonidlednev (T, C, L) 03:44, 29 May 2024 (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
  • Yes, it's a duck, and it's globally locked. However, as discussed previously for this sockpuppeteer, there's no point in spending any time on it. There's no point in a CheckUser, and this report should just be closed. JBW (talk) 09:18, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

05 June 2024

edit

Suspected sockpuppets

edit

Per adding messy Japanese on userpage. Request checking for sleepers per previous cases.-Lemonaka 08:18, 5 June 2024 (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

06 June 2024

edit

Suspected sockpuppets

edit

proforma,   Confirmed to each other and obvious Girth Summit (blether) 08:41, 6 June 2024 (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

10 January 2025

edit

Suspected sockpuppets

edit

Looks like DUCKs to me; pinging Tamzin to take a look :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:04, 10 January 2025 (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
  • Blocked. Not familiar with this SPI so leaving tagging decision to a clerk. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 07:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Certain posts in the archives are worth reading. There's not really any need to catalogue these socks, CU them, or maybe even block them. They don't edit outside of userspace, they do nothing but post random nonsense in Japanese, and they abandon their accounts immediately. No rangeblock is feasible. Just let them be. Spicy (talk) 14:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I am going to object to the characterization that they don't edit outside of user space. There are multiple examples of them (including some listed in the last archive) leaving the user space. It's fine if we want to say that's not worth tracking because their jumping is so infrequent, but to say no accounts edit mainspace is categorically incorrect. Izno (talk) 23:14, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And there is an argument to be made that we are assisting interwiki efforts to keep these socks to a minimum, which also are more mainspacey on other wikis than here. It's also fine to say that's not a big enough deal for us to spend the often-hours on it, but that is a consequence of our not taking time. Izno (talk) 23:15, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Apparently if you translate one of the relevant edit summaries we're basically leaving death threats hanging around? See Special:Contributions/ගරවාරුවා. Izno (talk) 03:35, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17 January 2025

edit

Suspected sockpuppets

edit

Similar behavior as socks previously reported. I understand if these socks should not even be reported for a block in future (see Spicy's analysis in the previous report); however, some of these accounts have threats of the similar kind as noticed in the past archive. Please let me know if I should stop reporting these in the future for blocks or go through a different method of reporting as stated in User:Tamzin/SPI is expensive (you may have to be a bit explicit, since I'm relatively new to SPI; would this be a channel like AIV, or just private contact with a sysop?). Thanks. Staraction (talk | contribs) 06:42, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

(Non-administrator comment)   Looks like a duck to me (Similar naming patterns mimicking Kamen Rider characters combined with Japanese for Asperger), Friendly warning that one of the socks has issued a death threat against Tetsuya Yamagami in Japanese. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 03:44, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

edit

19 January 2025

edit

Suspected sockpuppets

edit

See Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Bulut. Special:Diff/1270334122 Is typical for that LTA. Reported to SPI as suggested on lta page. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:16, 19 January 2025 (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 February 2025

edit

Suspected sockpuppets

edit

Request routine checking for sleepers of this one, since they usually created lots of sleepers per checking logs. Lock shall be requested after confirmed by Checkuser. -Lemonaka 09:21, 1 February 2025 (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

02 February 2025

edit

Suspected sockpuppets

edit

See Special:Diff/1273379916. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 04:07, 2 February 2025 (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

03 February 2025

edit

Suspected sockpuppets

edit

See deleted edits. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 06:16, 3 February 2025 (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

23 February 2025

edit

Suspected sockpuppets

edit

Per editing patterns on User talk:瀆儻罩瀆ワン, please also delete their talk page after block since contains offensive editing summary. -Lemonaka 14:43, 23 February 2025 (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
  • Just about   Possible leaning   Unlikely same country but not exactly the same location. According to Google Translate the account made death threats, so I have blocked them. Have deleted the user talk page. Closing. PhilKnight (talk) 15:13, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/あすぺるがあすぺしゃりすと/Archive&oldid=1278927409"