Knowledge (XXG)

:Sockpuppet investigations/Catcreekcitycouncil/Archive - Knowledge (XXG)

Source 📝


Catcreekcitycouncil

Catcreekcitycouncil (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
31 March 2012
Suspected sockpuppets

The first three accounts are mutually editing the Cat Creek, Montana article, adding some info but also pushing a hoax that there are lions in the town, claming as a source a local book "very credible in our community" of which "only a handful of copies are floating around". Stateofmontana joined in removing the hoax tag at one point as its only edit.  Sounds like a duck quacking into a megaphone to me, requesting CU for confirmation and sleeper check. The Bushranger One ping only 12:15, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Catcreek reinserted the hoax information into the article despite semiprotection. After looking through things once more I've blocked User:Catcreekcitycouncil, User:Catcreek and User:Timothyjohnson12 as loudly quacking ducks with a side order of disruptive editing (the reinsertion of unreliably sourced/hoax material); it's obvious that either socks or meatpuppetry is afoot. Keeping the CU request up to check if User:Stateofmontana is part of the same farm and to check for additional sleepers. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:28, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
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
  •  Clerk declined, as stated the accounts are very clearly related SPAs, either socks or meats. Checkuser is unlikely to establish anything of importance that we can't already see. This is extremely localised abuse of an article which before this was not active nor high-traffic, so I recommend an admin semis the page for some length of time and leaves it at that. Kind regards, Spitfire 10:34, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Sorry, temporary blindness on my part. I expect that the semi alongside the block of Catcreek should resolve the issue, at least for a fortnight, so I'll close this. If the issue continues following (or during) the protection then please relist or reprotect; I'll also watchlist the page and try and keep an eye out as best I can. Many thanks, Spitfire 10:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

After some suspicious edits by some recent accounts, I have checked, and the following are  Confirmed and indefinitely blocked:

  1. Rogerhayes34 (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  2. Timothyjohnson12 (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  3. Cityofcatcreek (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  4. Agourahighschool (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  5. Ahschargers (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  6. Montanastate (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  7. Montanastategov (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  8. Agourahigh (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  9. Kathyblaiwes (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  10. Cityofagourahills (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  11. Agourahillscity (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  12. Stansik (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  13. Konzum (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  14. Konzumer (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  15. Californiastate (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  16. Stateofcalifornia (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  17. Govenorjerrybrown (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  18. Barackhobama (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  19. Stapleshooter (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  20. Staplerexpert (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  21. Stansikindustries (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  22. Deptofkonzum (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  23. Konzumr (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  24. Staplerfanatic (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  25. Catcreekcitycouncil (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  26. Catcreek (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  27. Glossologistsucks (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  28. Larrymisel (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  29. Lisadonohomagical (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  30. Stansikinc (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  31. Nyttendsucks (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

 IP blocked. --MuZemike 11:43, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

11 April 2012
Suspected sockpuppets


He's back...this account apparently having edited elsewhere to get autoconfirmed then hitting the Cat Creek, Montana article again, removing all the article improvements and replacing them with "here be lions"...with an additional statement of there being leopards in southern Arizona, too. Then edit-warring to keep the hoaxing vandalism into the article. Blocked as a WP:GIANTDUCK, this account was created after the previous sockfarm of 31 was blocked, so requesting a CU to mop up likely sleepers and other socks. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:49, 11 April 2012 (UTC) The Bushranger One ping only 17:49, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

  • My sentiments too and if this disruptive behaviour of his were to persist, I'll be nominating him for community banning on ANI soon. --Dave 00:30, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
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
21 April 2012
Suspected sockpuppets

 1.75x amplified ultimate quack of ultimate destiny. Already blocked, but given the massive sockfarm this user produced before, I believe a SPI may be advisable. (Note: I've reprotected the article again as well, but the contribution history clearly shows that this user knows how to game the system to get autoconfirmed.) The Bushranger One ping only 09:15, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

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

 Confirmed plus:

--MuZemike 20:09, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

25 April 2012
Suspected sockpuppets


New user account created and promptly jumps in with the "There are lions in Cat Creek" support group, posting on the talk page, not the article this time though. The quacking is very faint, but given the above, I believe it should be checked. The Bushranger One ping only 06:24, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

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
  •  Clerk endorsed - I agree that the quacking isn't quite as loud as before, but considering the number of socks turned up on previous runs, I believe that a check is warranted. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 19:00, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Jim odowell is a  Likely match to previous accounts. There is another account that turned up, but it only has one edit and differing technical data. I'll leave it for now, but if there's more activity, please re-report. TNXMan 19:49, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Jim odowell blocked and tagged. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 20:20, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
26 April 2012
Suspected sockpuppets


Obvious and self-confessed WP:DUCK. Blocked, tagged, posted for the record. The Bushranger One ping only 05:30, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Since this has made it clear that they will persist on WP:OWNership of the article, nobody will be allowed to edit it. As such, Cat Creek, Montana has been full-protected for 1 month. --MuZemike 17:55, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

26 April 2012
Suspected sockpuppets


Literally quacking WP:GIANTDUCK (). Bagged, tagged, reluctantly suggesting semi-protection of the article talk page to go along with the article fullprotect. The Bushranger One ping only 18:56, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

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

See notes below. TNXMan 19:51, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


26 April 2012
Suspected sockpuppets

More of the same (lions in Cat Creek, Montana), now expanded to vandalizing Edwin Hanson Webster as well. Thanks! NawlinWiki (talk) 19:18, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Yup, these are all the same. However, a rangeblock is out -they're using a mobile provider and a school district, not exactly rangeblock friendly targets. TNXMan 19:51, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

So...schoolkids, presumably. Not really surprising I suppose. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:33, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
27 April 2012
Suspected sockpuppets

Attacking Bushranger over the Cat Creek article. Also added related unsourced content to Big cat.  Looks like a duck to me, but requesting for sleepers. Calabe1992 20:14, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Adding the IP due to related vandalism on Bushranger's talk page. Calabe1992 20:17, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
There is also Drecologist (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), who edited Big Cat to mention Cat Creek. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 20:24, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Sweet. Both accounts and IP tagged. Calabe1992 20:29, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
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
01 May 2012
Suspected sockpuppets

Enough said. Both blocked. CU requested based on declaration to continue socking. The Bushranger One ping only 20:41, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


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

No sleepers. Elockid 23:44, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

08 July 2012
Suspected sockpuppets


After a period of quisence, this account pops up and once again re-adds the claim of lions in Cat Creek, Montana. . Given the history of this socker I believe a CU for sleepers and other socks might be called for, as there have been some truly massive sockfarms associated with this pattern of abuse in the past. The Bushranger One ping only 18:59, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

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

Looks like we're all clear for now. Elockid 03:30, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


10 July 2012
Suspected sockpuppets


Yet another 'lions in Cat Creek' account, threatening further socking . Blocked, page protected, maybe CU again as they've explicitly said they already have other accounts. The Bushranger One ping only 21:39, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

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
13 July 2012
Suspected sockpuppets


 1.75x amplified ultimate quack of ultimate destiny and blocked. Was a sleeper from May that system-gamed today to get autoconfirmed. Sleeper check requested. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:48, 13 July 2012 (UTC) The Bushranger One ping only 00:48, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

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
Cat Creek, Montana is now full-protected for 3 months. --MuZemike 01:40, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
03 August 2012
Suspected sockpuppets


 Sounds like a duck quacking into a megaphone to me. , . Blocked already, requesting sleeper check. Note that the M.O. of this socker is to game the system to get autoconfirmed . Is there any chance of a long-term rangeblock here? The Bushranger One ping only 20:50, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

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


04 August 2012
Suspected sockpuppets


More socks already. It might be time to sysop-lock the Cat Creek, Montana talk page for a time... The Bushranger One ping only 03:59, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd rather leave it open and let them burn through more socks. Shadowjams (talk) 04:05, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough. My user page may need to be full-protected soon though if they keep up what they've been doing. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:14, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
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
  • It is  Inconclusive if these are Catcreekcitycouncil or not, but as far as I am concerned it is pretty obvious.
  •  Confirmed as socks of one another:


04 August 2012
Suspected sockpuppets

At this rate, there will be a global shortage of duck sauce. Blocked, tagged, posted for the record. Once again showing the system-gaming-for-autoconfirmed behavior . The Bushranger One ping only 18:36, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

As they are keen to get attention I blocked User:Areyouguysstupid and added it to this case. MilborneOne (talk) 19:15, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

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
08 December 2012
Suspected sockpuppets


WP:GIANTDUCK. YGBBIC on the Cat Creek, Montana article, , , having used Agoura High School to get autoconfirmed. The other accounts only vandalised Agoura High School making the exact same edits as the first account listed here , ; they appear to be connected to User:Agourahighschool who is a confirmed part of the CCCC sockfarm. Requesting CU for sleepers. The Bushranger One ping only 01:58, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

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
28 January 2013
Suspected sockpuppets


He's baaaaaaaaaaaaaack. And adding the same trolling crap about "Lions in Montana!" to Cat Creek, Montana as always. Polsciguru is from today; the other two are from last month but included here for the record. Blocked per WP:GIANTDUCK; as this vandal has created truly massive sockfarms in the past, requesting CU for sleepers. The Bushranger One ping only 00:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

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
11 February 2013
Suspected sockpuppets

Blocked ducks. Requesting a sleeper check. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:26, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

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
26 February 2013
Suspected sockpuppets


 1.75x amplified ultimate quack of ultimate destiny. Same gaming the system behavior, too. Stronger edit filter needed. Blocked, CU requested for sleepers from this long-term sockvandtroll. The Bushranger One ping only 01:32, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

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
05 April 2013
Suspected sockpuppets

Tripped edit filter. No edits as of now, but I think that will change. -- LuK3 (Talk) 20:58, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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

Other suspected socks, just going down the recently created username list for lion or cat related usernames:

I think the 2 cats and the tiger are less likely. The sock names seem to follow a pattern of replacing a word in the name of a well-known book with "Lion".

--Tckma (talk) 21:07, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Aren't Sockpuppet Investigations supposed to be accompanied by some kind of evidence of abuse? Aren't checkuser requests required to be accompanied by evidence of i) how the accounts belong to one person ii) how they are being abused iii) why CheckUser is necessary? Or have these become optional now? And the Unicorn (talk) 21:38, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
12 April 2013
Suspected sockpuppets


User SIMBA DA KING was blocked for vandalism, others with names similar to Knowledge (XXG):Sockpuppet investigations/Catcreekcitycouncil/Archive#05 April 2013 for abusing multiple accounts. IPs need blocking, and a check for other accounts as Simba Katika Crek was registered 3 minutes after SIMBA DA KING and remains unblocked. Peter James (talk) 23:34, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

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
16 April 2013
Suspected sockpuppets

More ducks. Another range needs to be blocked. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:09, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

More silly Cat Creek, Montana nonsense. Grayfell (talk) 06:54, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

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
07 December 2013
Suspected sockpuppets


Same pattern as before using long-term sleepers. Both blocked and tagged, please check for more. Acroterion (talk) 03:31, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

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
07 December 2013
Suspected sockpuppets

quack quack. See edits EvergreenFir (talk) 04:05, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

And another. Acroterion (talk) 04:16, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. With these and the other recent accounts, the number of IPs used should be enough, when combined with information from WHOIS links on the IP's pages, for a range block (or several, but affecting fewer IPs than those blocking Mangoeater1000). Protection isn't working, as the vandalism has just been moved to other articles. Peter James (talk) 15:06, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
05 May 2014
Suspected sockpuppets


Just when you thought we might be rid of this, the "Cat Creek lion vandal" returns. , with the slightly more sophiscated twist of using bogus sources (bogus in the sense the source, which is itself "good", does not support their position at all). Already bagged and tagged, but requesting a CU due to this sockvandtroll's habit of creating massive sockfarms. The Bushranger One ping only 00:22, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

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
08 May 2014
Suspected sockpuppets

Quack Quack. See edits. Check for sleepers? EvergreenFir (talk) 03:40, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

And another duck. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:47, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

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
​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:53, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
12 May 2014
Suspected sockpuppets


 1.75x amplified ultimate quack of ultimate destiny. Blocked. Tagged. Requesting CU for sleeper check. The Bushranger One ping only 22:26, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

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


15 May 2014
Suspected sockpuppets

Sock attack tonight. First sock establishes who. Others revert after blocks. Blocking continues. Rangeblock possible? The Bushranger One ping only 05:17, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. You may want to check the following:

The naming pattern is similar. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 05:48, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
Thanks for the look. It seems that for now they've gone quiet, but who knows when they'll turn up like a bad penny. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:02, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
20 May 2014
Suspected sockpuppets


They're baaaaack. And steadily getting more malicious. Basically a self-confession in addition to impersonation. The Bushranger One ping only 03:16, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

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
13 June 2014
Suspected sockpuppets

more of the usual. Grayfell (talk) 07:14, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

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

information Administrator note Already seen and dealt with - blocked, tagged, contributions reverted and revdeleted. For the sake of completeness, I've done the same with equally obvious sockpuppets User:King Derp and User:Macroeconomic Theory Guru.  Clerk endorsed I'd recommend a CU for sleepers, given this vandal's prior habits, so endorsing accordingly. Yunshui 水 07:40, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

  • I found the following sleeper:
Accounting Here We Come (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
PhilKnight (talk) 08:23, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
information Administrator note Thanks Phil - blocked and tagged. Guess this can be closed and archived now. Yunshui 水 08:40, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
09 July 2014
Suspected sockpuppets

quack quack EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:03, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

duck EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:04, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

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
09 January 2015
Suspected sockpuppets

After self-reverting null edits to get auto-confirmed, the editor added the same lion hoax as the other socks did. I would give diffs from them, but they all seem to have been suppressed. Requesting checkuser because, based on the SPI, they have a history of sleepers. Apparition /Mistakes 15:47, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

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
16 April 2015
Suspected sockpuppets

cat creek article + lions = duck

user has history of multiple socks/sleepers. This account was made in January 2015. First edit was today. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:16, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

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

27 February 2016

Suspected sockpuppets

Big cat related edit on Cat Creek, Montana talk page. . Duck quacking. Surprisingly inactive the past year... sleeper check? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:13, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Adding Linusthelion as duck EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:45, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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

@Mike V: I noticed that some of the confirmed socks below have names and exhibit trolling behavior that are very similar to the Sheds_thus_guys_argh_g_ugh_b sock cluster. It's uncanny, even.
First, for the Nazi/trolling names on this SPI:
Compare these to some of the Sheds socks:
And now, for trolling:
This SPI's socks:
The Sheds socks (selected sample, as there is a lot of it):
  • .

There is a clear MO here: The vandal chooses a bunch of users, and continually pops up to troll them. For example, calling themself Fovonion, they kept on harassing Cahk. This troll bothered Acroterion, and Sheds created Acroqueerion for more harassment. Trolling here also involves Favonian and Bongwarrior, just as it did in the Sheds case. I think we can conclusively say that the reason Catcreekcitycouncil was out for so long was because they were busy trolling as Sheds... or they just happen to choose the same trolling targets and usernames. What do you think? GAB 00:58, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

Linusthelion (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Ayuntamiento del Arroyo de Gato (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
69 is the best number (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Heiling Jimbo daily (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Heil Jimbo even harder! (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Orangecakeyum (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Mike V • Talk 00:01, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

28 March 2016

Suspected sockpuppets


The usual stuff about lions in Montana. Fortunately only at a ref desk for the moment. MarnetteD|Talk 13:45, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

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

ICaughtALion then went on a WP:* vandalism spree, then I went on a blocking spree. DMacks (talk) 16:23, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

 Clerk note: per CU findings, please merge this into Knowledge (XXG):Sockpuppet investigations/ItsLassieTime. TDL (talk) 00:16, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

@Vanjagenije: Agreed that the whole case shouldn't be merged, just the current report so that it's archived to the correct master. You've previously suggested that a hist-merge should be used rather than a copy-paste, hence why I requested admin involvement. TDL (talk) 01:16, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
@Danlaycock: Yes, but that was exactly opposite situation. In that case, the whole WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Kempler page with all of its history needed to be merged into WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Relpmek. Those two cases were completely merged, and that is when history-merge is preferred. Vanjagenije (talk) 11:03, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

11 May 2016

Suspected sockpuppets

DUCK EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:24, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

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

07 February 2017

Suspected sockpuppets

Duck roaring EvergreenFir (talk) 06:26, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

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

09 February 2017

Suspected sockpuppets

Another batch

Quack Grayfell (talk) 22:45, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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

2 more from a spree at Big cat. Home Lander (talk) 16:26, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

20 February 2017

Suspected sockpuppets

WP:DUCK- Sro23 (talk) 02:51, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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

Mister Bison Buddy has been blocked. Requesting CU to check for sleepers. I also asked for ECP on the page, since many socks were making enough edits to become autoconfirmed then editing the page. MereTechnicality ⚙ 14:25, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Is it time to open a case at LTA? MereTechnicality ⚙ 17:39, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I asked for an edit filter to log whenever "lion" is added to the article. MereTechnicality ⚙ 19:28, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

information Administrator note I blocked an obvious sock that was not already blocked. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:34, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

  •  Check declined by a checkuser - I've never found CU to be particularly useful with in this case, and since the accounts are blocked, I'm closing it. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 23:23, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

28 February 2017

Suspected sockpuppets

Just the usual. MereTechnicality ⚙ 05:09, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

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

02 March 2017

Suspected sockpuppets

Account solely created for reverting reverts. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 07:15, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

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

07 March 2017

Suspected sockpuppets

Sro23 (talk) 08:41, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

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

07 March 2017

Suspected sockpuppets


Clerk filing for CheckUser request. Ivanvector (/Edits) 20:22, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

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 March 2017
Suspected sockpuppets

 Looks like a duck to me It's impressive that they've all somehow managed to become extended confirmed. Stikkyy (talk) (contributions) 04:33, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

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

02 April 2017

Suspected sockpuppets

I'd like to avoid giving too much information away but this appears to be another attempt like Morocco the Casa to rapidly get to 500 edits (in order to vandalize protected pages/talks, of course) See deleted sandbox + current sandbox "testing" ;). User page similarity as well. Will provide more info and specific diffs if necessary but not trying to give it all away ;) CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 16:53, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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

Hello! Recently I received a notice stating that my account is a sock and has been posted here in conjunction with this other one. However, I can attest that this account is not a sockpuppet of any other and I would like contest this misunderstanding with a CheckUser request if necessary. Please message me about any further findings you may have. Geojournal (talk) 17:02, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
See comments at help desk: Knowledge (XXG):Help desk#Signature. They suggest that this user has edited Knowledge (XXG) before. RileyBugz | Edits 18:47, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Sorry to be rude, but the section is for "accused parties"... As far as I'm concerned, RileyBugz is not an accused party. Correct me otherwise. And yes please see his link. I should repeat though it may be less time consuming if you get a Clerk or CheckUser involved, but that's not yet up to me to decide. Geo 19:18, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
You are wrong. Any editor can use this section, including the accused party. -- ferret (talk) 19:19, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm relatively new... sorry about that. However, I'd like to mention the link to the help desk comments is clearly outing and as such a form of harassment. The link links to a section with personal details, see above. Geo 19:23, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

:::::Geojournal Those edits are on-Knowledge (XXG) so that isn't outing... CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:25, 3 April 2017 (UTC) Nevermind CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:27, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Userpage comparison:
Personally, I don't think that Geojournal and Catcreekcitycouncil are related. An unhealthy obsession with their own userpage isn't an attribute limited solely to creek socks. Stikkyy (talk) (contributions) 22:53, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

So I also find this user to be suspicious. The large amounts of cosmetic edits to their own userspace in general isn't usual for new users, possibly an attempt at WP:GAME? I say possibly because I don't think the user is even autoconfirmed yet. It is a new account, and CCCC normally uses older sleeper accounts that have become auto/extended confirmed right before going on a vandalism spree. That's not what happened here (at least not yet). Geojournal do you understand our suspicions why you don't seem like you're new here? If you don't mind me asking, is this your first account, and if not, could you please disclose previous accounts? Sro23 (talk) 00:40, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, looking at the user pages of the others you posted and the similar processions, I see where confusion arises. No, I am actually not exactly a new user here. See Knowledge (XXG):Help desk#Signature. Unfortunately, at that point I did not think I would be returning to Knowledge (XXG) and so did not bother with the previous account. After quite the long while, it sparked an interest in me again, especially when meeting other Wikipedians outside of the internet-based Foundation. Geo 11:05, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't think this discussion is necessary. If Geojournal is trying to game ECP, then we will find out if they cross the threshold and start vandalizing, and they will be blocked. If they aren't, then we can all move on and pretend this never happened because it's basically accusing them of sockpuppetry solely because they edited their user pages a lot. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 11:39, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  •  Additional information needed: while I think I see what Chrissymad sees, it doesn't connect this user to this case, and I'm not blocking someone for being "somebody's sockpuppet"; we don't do that. Can you be more specific? Ivanvector (/Edits) 19:40, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
  •  Clerk note: I'm closing this with no action. I take the concern about rapid test edits and similar user pages as valid and in good faith, but I'm concerned about SPI being used as a bludgeon to club the newbie here when there hasn't been any disruption. I'm going to echo Nyttend's comment from the help desk: that the longer we draw this out with nothing bad having happened, the closer it gets to plain old harassment. What Jc86035 said is right: it's fine to wait and see while the user hasn't actually done anything, and WP:AGF is still a policy.
@Geojournal: it is not necessary for you to disclose your prior account(s) as long as they are not blocked, but if you would like to you can do so by putting a note on your user page. A userbox you might use for this purpose is at Template:User previous account, with instructions there on how to use it. Ivanvector (/Edits) 13:16, 4 April 2017 (UTC)


05 April 2017

Suspected sockpuppets

1. Yet another username containing "library", compare User:La Brea Library Branch. 2. Registered in early November but only started editing now, same as the last batch of socks (User:La Brea Library Branch, User:Morocco the Casa, User:American Airlines Flyer, etc). 3. I don't actually believe Geojournal to be a CCCC sockpuppet. What most likely happened is that CCCC has been keeping up with this SPI's going on's and decided to troll the user here. I also don't think that it's a coinicedence the word "roar" is on their userpage. Sro23 (talk) 18:24, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Also worth noting that these were created during hte same time this last spate of CCCC socks were:


23:09, 6 November 2016 User account The Lion Sleeps Tonight (talk | contribs) was created - B
23:10, 6 November 2016 User account The Lion Slept Yesterday (talk | contribs) was created
23:10, 6 November 2016 User account The Lion Sleeps Tomorrow (talk | contribs) was created
23:12, 6 November 2016 User account The Lion May Sleep Never (talk | contribs) was created
23:14, 6 November 2016 User account LA Public Library 5512 (talk | contribs) was created - currently active
23:15, 6 November 2016 User account La Brea Library Branch (talk | contribs) was created - B
23:16, 6 November 2016 User account No Ticky No Washy (talk | contribs) was created - B
23:18, 6 November 2016 User account Air France Flyer (talk | contribs) was created - B
23:19, 6 November 2016 User account American Airlines Flyer (talk | contribs) was created - B
23:19, 6 November 2016 User account Morocco the Casa (talk | contribs) was created - B

There was also: 23:16, 6 November 2016 User account Sierra Leon Public Library (talk | contribs) was created but it doesn't seem to match the LA library theme. None are active currently besides the current one reported (anything with a B is blocked) but as we've seen they create them well in advance of vandalism. My apologies (and I will be posting this on Geojournal's talk) for erroneously filing that report on GJ. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 18:40, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

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

09 April 2017

Suspected sockpuppets

See edit filter log (). Appears to be another attempt at trolling Geojournal who was originally suspected of being a sock but found not to be one. Compare also to User:Geojournal1-User:Geojournal5. Sro23 (talk) 17:54, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

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

13 April 2017

Suspected sockpuppets

Per WP:DUCK, same trolling of the same user. Sro23 (talk) 09:47, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

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


13 April 2017

Suspected sockpuppets

Already blocked and Cat Creek, Montana fully protected, but requesting CU to see if there are any sleepers. —MRD2014 📞 contribs 12:16, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

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

13 April 2017

Suspected sockpuppets


The edit quacks for itself. MarnetteD|Talk 22:43, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

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

 Blocked but awaiting tags by Widr (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) - Mifter (talk) 04:34, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

08 February 2018

Suspected sockpuppets


See below.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 11:40, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

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

29 April 2018

Suspected sockpuppets

Multiple socks being created, requesting CU and perhaps a rangeblock to shut them down. See history of Prince of Wales for some other recents. Thanks. Home Lander (talk) 19:35, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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

Alright, thanks Zzuuzz. {{Awaitingadmin}} Numerous below accounts are not blocked. Home Lander (talk) 21:49, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

The relation between each other and Catcreekcitycouncil is not entirely clear. Behaviourally, PoopyDiaper69 is possible, but it's also possibly Wikinger. Impeachtrump69 is possibly unrelated but is confirmed to a number of vandalsocks:

-- zzuuzz 21:42, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

In my opinion it's enough that they're blocked, this is as much of all of our time as I'm interested in wasting on this. As far as I can tell, Home Lander, they are all blocked. Closing. Ivanvector (/Edits) 23:34, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
@Ivanvector: Yep, looks like we're done now. Thanks. Home Lander (talk) 23:40, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

03 October 2018

Suspected sockpuppets


basic lion stuff, check for sleepers Vernzz (talk) 21:43, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

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

07 October 2018

Suspected sockpuppets

Repeated vandalism adding identical text to Livonia, Michigan, Wayne County, Michigan, and other geographically-related articles.

Alex Cohn (let's chat!) 23:37, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

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

  • CheckUser requested and endorsed by clerk - I think there's a reasonable chance this has already been checked, but if it hasn't, please do so to identify sleepers. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:01, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
  •  Confirmed that all listed accounts belong to the same person. No sleepers uncovered and no No comment with respect to IP address(es). All blocked, a few of them are globally locked as well. - Mailer Diablo 11:49, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

14 October 2018

Suspected sockpuppets

This guy's back again, apparently he's aware that his usual targets are semi'd and so is leaving accounts idle for several months before making a bunch of edits in quick succession to autoconfirm. Probably would be a good idea to check for sleepers. Nathan2055 06:50, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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

@Bbb23: Since it's clear that this LTA is aware of how to WP:GAME the system and is operating a potentially large number of autoconfirmed socks, would it not be good to check for any sleepers, especially since previous SPIs have tended to uncover several as of yet unused ones each time? --Nathan2055 06:49, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

A check is unnecessary. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:35, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

@Nathan2055: I haven't checked this person in a long time, but they tend to skip on proxies. So checks won't help for how obvious they make their edits. Archiving. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 04:10, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

↑