Greenock125

Greenock125 (talk ·  · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Report date July 18 2009, 10:59 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Kww

WP:DUCK. Similar username, edits only articles about Pixie Lott.—Kww(talk) 10:59, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


Conclusions
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.

Blocked/tagged. PeterSymonds (talk) 00:37, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]



Report date July 22 2009, 11:13 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by TFOWR

Ignoring the unimaginative username, edits are to similar articles - particularly Pixie Lott (the article cited in Greenock125's previous SPI report). After editing in June 2008, no further editing occurred until today, 11 minutes after Greenock125's last edit (adding an unblock template - their attempt to unblock themselves appears to have failed, however, so don't be alarmed!) TFOWRThis flag once was red 11:13, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 Clerk note: User indefinitely blocked by a patrolling admin. MuZemike 18:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.




Report date July 31 2009, 14:58 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Kww

This edit seems to be toying with us. Given that I'm confused by any possible motive, I think a checkuser is in order to see if this is a confession of block evasion or an attempt to get an innocent blocked. Given the contents of the IP's talk page, I'm inclined to believe that this is block evasion.—Kww(talk) 14:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replying to Nathan: this edit is the major tie: Ryan1768 is trying to exit the autoblock, and is referring to the same IP address. The main editing overlap is British pop, which, given that the address is in Britain, I'm willing to concede is not strong evidence. The anonymous editing jumps back and forth between the Pixie Lott articles that are pretty obviously Greenock125, and the JLS articles that are the province of Ryan1768. It's apparent that at the very least, Greenock125 is using the anonymous IP to evade the block. So, the real question here is this: is it safe to hardblock 81.104.129.242 to get rid of Greenock125 for good? Or is doing so going to sweep up an innocent user? If Ryan1768 is the same user, a hardblock is appropriate. If they are clearly separate users, then maybe an IP block exemption is in order. One way or the other, something needs to be done to block the IP at some level.—Kww(talk) 00:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.
Comments by other users
CheckUser requests
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by —Kww(talk) 14:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC) [reply]


 Clerk endorsed to determine connection between the IP and the two user accounts and to check if a hardblock would create any collateral damage or not. MuZemike 20:35, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
  • Can we have some evidence that connects the two accounts? The "toying" diff above is from the already blocked account, but I don't see any obvious connection to the Ryan account? Nathan T 23:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.



Report date August 30 2009, 14:44 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Kww

Strong overlap in editing articles, including some fairly obscure ones. They share a strong interest in Pixie Lott.

The following articles were created by Greenock125, and are being maintained by Rydogal123

Rydogal was created only two weeks after the last set of blocks were placed against Greenock125.—Kww(talk) 14:44, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.
Comments by other users
CheckUser requests
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by —Kww(talk) 14:44, 30 August 2009 (UTC) [reply]


 Clerk endorsed MuZemike 23:09, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


Conclusions

 Likely Currently available technical and behavioral evidence indicates that it is likely that the names account is a Greenock sock. The IP listed above is  Inconclusive. -- Avi (talk) 20:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.



Report date November 22 2009, 07:55 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by Tiptoety

Pending CheckUser evidence (opened for procedural purposes only). Tiptoety talk 07:55, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
CheckUser requests
Checkuser request – code letter: F (Other reason )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by Tiptoety talk 07:55, 22 November 2009 (UTC) [reply]



Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Conclusions
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.


02 June 2010
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Ericorbit

The latest in a long list; looks rather DUCK-y to me.

  • Immediate joining of discographies project: [1]
  • Immediate knowledge and use of chart tables macros: [2]
  • Full list of socks here: [3]
  • Most recent socks include User:RyanG222 and User:WeedDJ (latest user can also be checked against these).

Thanks in advance. - eo (talk) 11:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
Yes... most recent sock investigation(s) were for RyanG222. The checkuser for WeedDJ linked it to Greenock999, who is obviously a sock of Greenock125, so I attempted to bunch all of the socks together under Greenock125 for consistency's sake. - eo (talk) 11:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Declined, the reason can be found below.    Requested by eo (talk) 11:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC) [reply]
I've gone ahead and blocked based on the loud quacking. Checkuser still required in my view to find an underlying IP to block: this is getting ridiculous.—Kww(talk) 20:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Any chance we can get this person back into the fold? I have noticed this editor over the last couple of days, and while their edits weren't flawless, they were in parts certainly improvements. He's even using your template. :)
Assuming this is the same user, I notice he asked for a second change on User talk:Rydogal123 over half a year back. Would there be concerns to try and mentor him back? Amalthea 20:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I sympathize with your view, and that's the reason I was reluctant when Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RyanG222/Archive started getting active. The tomfoolery there gives me pause. I'd be willing to mentor him on my usual 6 month probation/0RR/no alternate account rules if we could get him to agree and you would agree to periodically sweep for socking.—Kww(talk) 21:04, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I had only read the RyanG222 SPI archive after I wrote the above, I initially only looked into this one's archive for the last sock. The talk page of that user and the ANI report give me pause, too. Let's see if he comments on the situation. Amalthea 21:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Am talking to the user, looks kinda promising. Might need periodic sweeps if he accepts his probation. Amalthea 13:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
11 June 2010
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Ericorbit

I very nearly blocked this person the other day (see multiple warnings and ignoring of Talk Page communication, even blanking out warnings [4]), and I am still monitoring the situation, but I can't ignore the striking similarities between this person's editing style and choice of articles. Sllewellyn7 in particular has been around for a while, but I'd like a checkuser on this, just to be certain. Edits here are way to closely related to recent socks User:RyanG222, User:WeedDJ and User:Andy593. My WP:DUCK senses are tingling on this one. Can a quick check be done here? - eo (talk) 11:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by eo (talk) 11:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC) [reply]

No, he's Red X Unrelated, and that would have actually been surprising seeing that he had temporal overlap with Andy593 both while the latter was blocked and unblocked.
For the record, Andy593 did evade his block with John3705, briefly. Amalthea 12:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.


13 June 2010
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Fiftytwo thirty

This user's first edit was to post the Ip unblocking template on his user talk page (stating that he unblocked the IP, very doubtful, also very typical activity of this sock, see User:David1234556789), and second was to replace a page that a confirmed sock, User:WeedDJ, had created and since redirected. Further, the IP address has a message on it that it is a suspected sock of User:RyanG222. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 21:26, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 Confirmed that

are WeedDJ & friends. iPhone range. Amalthea 10:28, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

information Administrator note Blocked and tagged. TNXMan 11:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
23 June 2010
Suspected sockpuppets

81.104.133.64 (talk ·  · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))


Evidence submitted by Mister sparky (talk)

this ip address is a sock of ryang222, thementalist and weeddj. makes exactly the same edits. also copies and pastes unblocks onto their talkpages to impersonate admins. obvious sock. Mister sparky (talk) 13:10, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users


CheckUser requests
Checkuser request – code letter: F (Other reason )
Current status – Declined, the reason can be found below.    Requested by Mister sparky (talk) 13:10, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk declined – Behavioral evidence clearly indicates that this IP is Greenock125; no CU necessary. –MuZemike 01:07, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 Clerk note: moved from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/81.104.133.64, please see there for original page history. SpitfireTally-ho! 22:20, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

information Administrator note 81.104.128.0/21 blocked 1 month. –MuZemike 01:07, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
11 July 2010
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Fiftytwo thirty (talk)

This user has been doing a flurry of editing, including reverting users' reverts from prior socks, especially on discographies. I noticed this revert on my watchlist that a prior sock (User:Jam5675) did just a month ago. Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 21:31, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This one looks pretty obvious to me - a new user only two days old with a huge list of "articles I created" - all similar music interests and immediate knowledge of charts table macros. Several of Greenock125's socks immediately set up User Pages (complete with infoboxes) also. If immediate action can be taken here, that'd be great, this guy edits a lot very quickly. WP:DUCK - eo (talk) 10:10, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This user continues to make articles that fail the notability guidelines and MOS. He uses the characteristic {{expand}} template instead of stub templates as well as being fluent in wikimarkup. A quick spin through his contribs show lots of similarities and reverts to edits from other Greenock socks. Agree that quick action is needed. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 14:33, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

←Note also that if checkuser confirms a sock, the user was given quite a number of "last chances" to improve upon his editing practices: User talk:Andy593#Blocked - eo (talk) 15:41, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties
Comments by other users


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Duckish enough that there's no reason for a checkuser here. Blocked and tagged already.I'll be a bit presumptuous and decline it just so I can get the case to close.—Kww(talk) 15:48, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

19 July 2010
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Fiftytwo thirty

Here we go again. New user, immediately starts creating new pages and editing discographies and going back to old pages created by the rest of this person's sock farm. I noticed this revert on Oah (two socks have already done this in the past few months). This user also creates poorly sourced new pages, with the only sources being amazon and Itunes, and the expand template. Not to mention that he/she is fluent in wikimarkup. This user makes lots of edits very quickly, so I recommend quick action. Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 15:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I say WP:DUCK. Even the user's response is the same exact thing he says every time. - eo (talk) 15:30, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ya. Agree that it is a bit ducky. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 15:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think I agree. However, are there any reasons as to why this user shouldn't edit Wikipedia? /HeyMid (contributions) 15:53, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Heymid, a glimpse at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Greenock125/Archive should give an indication, particularly the "last last last last chance" this person was given at User talk:Andy593 (see the block and deal sections and go from there). - eo (talk) 16:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I understand. /HeyMid (contributions) 16:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by accused parties   

I do not know why I am bing investegated for being a sockpuppet of Greenock125 I have never heard of him, please trust me I'm telling the truth. I promise I will not do lots of edits very quickly. Joe692 (talk) 15:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

no Declined. Both the sockmaster and suspected sockpuppet are indefinitely blocked. --Deskana (talk) 17:58, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

15 August 2010
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by NerdyScienceDude

Obvious username. Saw this while patrolling the user creation log. ~NSD (✉ • ✐) 15:58, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Chip123polo is back's first and last edit lived up to expectations. Blocked indef. Favonian (talk) 16:09, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

information Administrator note Blocked and tagged. TNXMan 02:27, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
17 September 2010
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Ericorbit

Loooong history of sockpuppetry here; it looks as if this user has given up on creating accounts (unless some are out there that are not discovered yet) and edits now only as anon IP. They seem to be all in the same general range, all editing the same articles, with the same editing style and edit summaries, as Greenock125 and all of his socks. Is a range-block possible here? Frequent topics of interest are music-chart lists for UK, Ireland, Scotland, articles pertaining to alternative/r&b/hip-hop and grime artists (artist, song, album, discography pages). I want to call WP:DUCK but I'm hesitant because of the use of IPs. The first IP listed is the most recent one I've found. NOTE: some of the IP edits I'm submitting here go back several months but I am including them to demonstrate that this may be someone using a range to evade block(s), and certainly there are many more not shown here. Thanks in advance. - eo (talk) 11:49, 17 September 2010 (UTC) eo (talk) 11:49, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
24 September 2010
Suspected sockpuppets



Evidence submitted by Ericorbit

Two-day-old account, immediate knowledge of music (album/song) article creation (templates, infoboxes, etc), similar music interests as past socks (in this case Sugababes and X Factor contestants), very fast-moving editing. If a sweep can be done for any additional socks that would really help, if possible. Thanks in advance. - eo (talk) 12:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Thank you. I see you blocked the sleepers, I took care of SnithRian18. - eo (talk) 17:07, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
19 October 2010
Suspected sockpuppets



Evidence submitted by Ericorbit

seems pretty WP:DUCK-ish to me (particularly because of info on the User Page), although would like to be 100% sure. Greenock has about a trillion socks, so a sweep for any others would also be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance. - eo (talk) 12:15, 19 October 2010 (UTC) eo (talk) 12:15, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
I agree and the more I look at his edits, the more I'm convinced. He creates sleeper accounts too, so any checks that can be done will help. - eo (talk) 12:24, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 Confirmed YiddoGeth == Greenock125.
No other unblocked accounts apparent. Amalthea 12:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marking for close. TNXMan 14:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
09 February 2011
Suspected sockpuppets

Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

Seems WP:DUCK-y to me, the usual interests and editing style, etc. Please also check for sleepers as this user has a long history. Thanks in advance. - eo (talk) 17:52, 9 February 2011 (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

20 February 2021

Suspected sockpuppets

Greenock125 has used multiple accounts to evade their block since Yamla blocked them in November 2020. Their main MO is expanding song redirects—that other editors made—into articles in this manner: [5] (old IP), [6], [7], [8] (all new IP). @Primefac: blocked the range Special:Contributions/2A00:23C4:B904:9A00:E8B3:84BD:E15:40ED/40 after I brought it to his attention two weeks ago. I did not bring that report here because I understand that IP addresses cannot be publicly connected to registered accounts, and that is also why I have not asked for a CheckUser to be run in this instance.

I confronted the user about their repeated block evasion on their talk page (User talk:109.157.209.225#Stop block evading), where from their first message they admitted to being Greenock125 and being blocked for copyright violations, and made clear their belief that they should still be allowed to edit because they try their "best to get everything right". I believe a block based on behavioural evidence and the user's own admission when they have nothing to gain by lying is enough in this case. Ss112 10:13, 20 February 2021 (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

  • Blocked the IP 1 month. Reblocked the block-evading master & tagged. The IPv6 edits - Special:Contributions/2a00:23c4:b900::/40 - show that Greenock125 has ignored his block since the moment it was imposed, and viewed logging in as optional before that point too. Cabayi (talk) 10:26, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

26 February 2021

Suspected sockpuppets

The day after the user's last IP block on 109.157.209.225, they are back editing on from what I can see, not one but two IPs that geolocate to Greenock in Scotland. They are doing all the old Greenock125 things. expanding music redirects others created into articles ([9], [10], [11]—the last being a Eurovision entry, which Greenock125 made sure to update information on every year), updating Scottish pandemic data (on 109.155.71.118, 86.29.54.26). It appears they've been using the 86-range IP for months, indicating they know how to use multiple one after the other. Ss112 16:32, 26 February 2021 (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

27 February 2021

Suspected sockpuppets

Not sure a CheckUser is necessary here as it seems pretty obvious. This editor is quite prolific with the amount of registered accounts they have and IPs they can edit from at a moment's notice. This account appears to have been created to set up redirects for Greenock125 to later expand using their IP address(es). Editing all the same topics as the previous IPs. Editing Scottish COVID-19 medical data like the IPs that were reported earlier today [12], created a redirect for Where I'm From (Lukas Graham song) [13] that their now-blocked IP later expanded [14], created a template for the artist Tom Grennan, whose song the now-blocked IP from earlier expanded a song article for. Also creating pages relating to Eurovision, one of Greenock125's favourite topics historically. Ss112 01:49, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Add Special:Contributions/86.150.247.128 as they've edited this very page admitting to said sockpuppetry and said they will not edit for six months, only to have then remove said message later with RSS578's account and continue editing on the IP. Ss112 20:32, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As if the connection could not have been made any clearer given Greenock125's past preoccupation with Eurovision entrants and their songs, RSS578 just created The Ride (Rafał Brzozowski song) (here) and 17 minutes later, used his IP address to create Talk:The Ride (Rafał Brzozowski song) (here). @Cabayi: This investigation has been open for over two weeks. I believe it's pretty straightforward and would not take very long to look at given you are already somewhat familiar with this editor and reviewed the past two investigations—as well as the fact that the IP editor and registered editor have both edited this very page to admit to this then remove it. Can you please review and close this before this editor continues to edit prolifically? Thank you. Ss112 07:18, 13 March 2021 (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

18 April 2021

Suspected sockpuppets

Greenock125 is back using IPs in the 86.187.xxx.xxx range, updating Scottish COVID-19 case data [15] [16] just like his prior blocked socks (here), and expanding articles relating to Scottish singers he has displayed an interest in before, e.g. Rag'n'Bone Man [17]. Ss112 16:12, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have added 2A00:23C4:B904:9A00:798B:937:3C37:F52E as they have expanded a British artist's song article and also contributed to the Scottish COVID-19 case data article for April, like all of Greenock125's most recent socks. Ss112 13:52, 20 April 2021 (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

Allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Greenock125/Archive
No tags for this post.