Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lar409/Archive

Lar409 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Suspected sockpuppets

• Ral539 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
• Editor interaction utility

Apart from the highly similar usernames (A-L-R letters in a different order followed by 3 numbers):

• Continual blanking of talk page warnings without replying
• Similar patterns of edit warring on Bioshock-related articles/templates (and other topics)
• User:Lar409 restarted editing after a few months off literally one minute after User:Ral539 blanked thier talk pages following a block for edit warring

Since both accounts have been existing for a while, it leads me to believe there might be other "sleepers" that could be reactivated if/when User:Lar409 is blocked. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 22:23, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• In case they have additional insight, I'll ping User:Sergecross73 because he blocked both in the past few months, and User:Soetermans because he alerted me to the similarities between both accounts. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 22:29, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I strongly believe they're sockpuppets. It would actually explain a lot. I was puzzled when I looked at "R"s block log because I could have sworn I blocked him in the past. I must have been thinking of "L" when I blocked "R". That's how alike they are. Sergecross73 msg me 00:57, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. I've run into Ral539 a couple of times. Not a vandal, but he rarely communicates and doesn't follow general guidelines. Similarites between the two accounts:

• Editing the article Saints Row IV, which again weren't all bad, but often did leave something to be desired (see history that show edits Ral539 and Lar409)
• Editing Saints Row developer Volition (see history)

Compare Ral539 and Lar409:

• editing the article on Gavin Free: (and disregarding RS guidelines) history
• editing video game-related articles
• editing TV series-related articles
• rarely using edit summaries

--Soetermans. T / C 22:49, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed another one, this template {{Sonic games}} (see history). Both accounts were editing against consensus. --Soetermans. T / C 06:14, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Confirmed that Ral539 (talk · contribs) and Lar409 (talk · contribs) are the same.  Confirmed that Ral539 (talk · contribs) also uses the following accounts:

• Uqbausbsj (talk · contribs)
• Klmoisdf (talk · contribs)
• QWEOWFNA827 (talk · contribs)
• Winksdfn (talk · contribs)
• Qbisudbfib (talk · contribs)
  •  IP blocked

- Mailer Diablo 00:00, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Tagged and closing. Rschen7754 03:57, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: this section moved from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ral539/Archive. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:10, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

Suspected sockpuppets

• Gtf425 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
• Editor interaction utility

I'm starting to think Lar409's sockpuppetting problems are really major.

Same edit from Lar409 and then Gtf425, along with the matching username. Blocked for obvious behavioural similarity, request sleeper check on most recent sock's data. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 13:45, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Just noticed the precedent SPI was filed under Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ral539/Archive, which is chonologically the first created account but was a unused sleeper until this summer, IMO the main account is Lar409 and the other archive should be moved under here; but that's a decision for SPI Clerks. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 13:50, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• No sleepers, and  IP blocked. LFaraone 01:27, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Closing now. Note that I've merged the other SPI here. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:10, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

Suspected sockpuppets

• IoW30223 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
• Editor interaction utility

1. Similar username (three letters and numbers)
2. Same interests Red vs. Blue topics, big involvement in Rooster Teeth filmography, also with Saints Row IV, and miscellanous TV series, and video game NavBoxes
3. Compare this edit to similar edits from a previous sock and the master.

Recent CU check uncovered sleepers so am requesting another one on this fresh sock. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:52, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

•  Clerk endorsed - per behavioral evidence above. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:02, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• IoW30223 (talk · contribs) is a  Confirmed sock, no sleepers.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 21:28, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Confirmed sock blocked indef per CU findings, closing now. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:33, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

Suspected sockpuppets

• Kub8615 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Bef92834234 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
• Editor interaction utility

.- Again, same username pattern (three letters + numbers)

.- Kub8615 was blocked a few days ago without filing a full SPI per overwhelming behavioural evidence (see report), and Bef92834234 made the same edit as Kub8615 a short while later.

.- Requesting sleeper check, but since the accounts are created one after another and autoblock doesn't seem useful, perhaps a rangeblock or some other measures could be explored? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 02:51, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

• User:Kub8615 already indef-blocked prior to this report. User:Bef92834234 blocked on behavioural evidence. Master's block upped to indef (not sure why that wasn't already done, actually). Awaiting CU assistance for sleeper check and perhaps other measures to take. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 02:53, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Kub8615 (talk · contribs) and Bef92834234 (talk · contribs) are  Confirmed socks; no sleepers found. There are some IP blocks in place, however they have access to dynamic wireless ranges which allow them skirt the blocks occasionally.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:09, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Tagged and closing. Rschen7754 19:11, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---