Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Xparta/Archive

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.


Xparta

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

21 October 2016

Suspected sockpuppets

The

talk 05:29, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments


23 October 2016

Suspected sockpuppets

talk 16:08, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

31 October 2016

Suspected sockpuppets

talk 14:25, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  •  In progress - Katietalk 18:11, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are technical similarities that make Xparta  Possible. Xparta is also a much older account than TheErectile.  Behavioural evidence needs evaluation Katietalk 20:35, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pink clock Awaiting administrative action - These edits are practically identical. I think a block is in order. Thanks, GABgab 21:34, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Blocked.  Clerk assistance requested: to move this to the oldest account (Xparta) and fix tags. ~ Rob13Talk 04:07, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk note:  Done. GABgab 15:27, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

11 November 2016

Suspected sockpuppets

This page looks very similar to the sock puppetry by Xparta on

talk 23:13, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  •  In progress - Katietalk 23:32, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Confirmed, blocked, and tagged. Closing. Katietalk 23:37, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

02 December 2016

Suspected sockpuppets

talk 15:54, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

talk 16:06, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
talk 16:16, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
@
talk 21:14, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • Pink clock Awaiting administrative action - Block sock per DUCK, no prior evidence of sleepers to justify CU. Softblock IPs. QEDK (T ☕ C) 18:13, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@
Dane2007: That wasn't a sleeper, but an uncaught sock. Nearly all of his socks are made, and begin editing after that. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 09:01, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
@QEDK: TheImageCollector may have got missed out here as they were blocked for edit warring - do they still need blocking? -- samtar talk or stalk 13:32, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

05 December 2016

Suspected sockpuppets

talk 12:08, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • @Samtar:, I need you to go through the deleted edit and see if the behaviour is same. Block the previous sock indefinitely, preferably with a higher autoblock time (default is 24 hrs, I think). If this one matches the pattern too, block it indefinitely too. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 17:32, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    ECP/PC2 the page. Entirely forgot that. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 17:39, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:DUCK (deleted contribs) -- samtar talk or stalk 18:06, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    @Samtar: Block TheImageCollector too. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 19:47, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
     Blocked and tagged TheImageCollector -- samtar talk or stalk 19:54, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing more to do here. Case closed. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:54, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

20 December 2016

Suspected sockpuppets

This IP and the editing style matches the prior edits made by Xparta on articles related to the Kobo family. This is the same IP range as the prior socks. Not requesting checkuser due to IP address - this is strictly behavioral. -- Dane talk 19:39, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • Pink clock Awaiting administrative action - Block and forget. Perform collateral check on 82.81.*, might recommend a rangeblock if more IPs of the same range comes up in the future. QEDK (愛) 18:07, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Way beyond block stale, and 82.81.80.0/20 block is not advised with too much collateral vs. target. --
    Amanda (aka DQ) 06:37, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]

11 April 2022

Suspected sockpuppets

This appears to be a sock puppet of Xparta based on editing style and focus. User previously communicated among multiple channels and was informed not to edit their own articles due to COI.

Suspicious Edits ("Edit style") appears to be removing potentially negative information about O.D. Kobo and promoting his related ventures. These same behaviors were seen with the prior socks. Requesting CheckUser to look for potential sleepers. -- Dane talk 23:47, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  •  Check declined by a checkuser -  Stale -- Amanda (she/her) 15:30, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @
    diffs
    to support your case. Please give two or more diffs meeting the following format:
  1. At least one diff is from the sockmaster (or an account already blocked as a confirmed sockpuppet of the sockmaster), showing the behaviour characteristic of the sockmaster.
  2. At least one diff per suspected sockpuppet, showing the suspected sockpuppet emulating the behaviour of the sockmaster given in the first diff.
  3. In situations where it is not immediately obvious from the diffs what the characteristic behaviour is, a short explanation must be provided. Around one sentence is enough for this. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:08, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing as no further information was provided — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:24, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Xparta/Archive&oldid=1138682244"