Brickipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Archive

GaladhanuOhtaryondo

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Suspected sockpuppets Blue Fire (talk - contribs - blocks - logs - cu - block) Minutes after Galadhanu's incident in chat and Galadhanu suddenly had to leave, "Blue Fire" was created Blue Fire coincidentally immediately found Special:Chat, knew various emoticons already, and one of the first things they said was asking how not to be banned. After being accused of being a sockpuppet in chat, Blue Fire abruptly had to leave. This would not be the first BP:SP violation that Galadhanu has had by far. I'm almost positive it is. Not sure if the above statements warrant a CheckUser scan, but I'll let the community discuss it below and decide if it should be blocked. --ToaMeiko (talk) 03:02, 24 April 2014 (UTC) Comments by other users Deffinetely a sockpuppet. --King Kahuka (talk) 03:04, 24 April 2014 (UTC) He and Galad share the same avatar. Highly suspicious. Don't even wait to block him. (Joking aside, yeah, there's plenty of reason for suspicion, looking at the logs.) BrickfilmNut (talk) 03:15, 24 April 2014 (UTC) (General notice for future reference- I shouldn't have checkuser rights on here as they were transferred to Berrybrick on Brickia and my rights were removed, and refuse to use them). On the issue, sounds suspicious NovaHawk 03:18, 24 April 2014 (UTC) Comments by a CheckUser Not confirmed - Blue Fire was created and connected to chat on a mobile device, so there is no way to link that to GaladhanuOhtaryondo. The behavioural evidence seems pretty convincing though. Ajraddatz (talk) 03:28, 24 April 2014 (UTC) Hmm, it's probably that he got off chat on his computer and made a new account from a phone/iPod or whatever. :/ Should it be blocked since it's pretty safe to assume that it's a sockpuppet, or wait until it causes trouble, or what? I'd hate to be biting a newcomer, but it seems pretty clear it's not a newcomer. I'd also not want to wait until it causes trouble, since it's always better to prevent trouble in the first place. --ToaMeiko (talk) 03:32, 24 April 2014 (UTC) Hi! Kahuka linked me here, so I had to say something: AGF. GaladhanuOhtaryondo (talk) 14:45, 24 April 2014 (UTC) I'm not sure - I I don't particularly care - what Galad is up to and why he is getting banned and stuff, but I'd point out that most emoticons are pretty universal. I have no thoughts on the rest of the matter. CJC95 (talk) 12:37, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

NuffSaid

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Suspected sockpuppets Nexus (talk - contribs - blocks - logs - cu - block) The user Nexus has clearly stated their identity to be of NuffSaid, however I would like a CheckUser confirmation of this and to know if there are any other sockpuppet accounts of NuffSaid. --ToaMeiko (talk) 21:22, 15 March 2014 (UTC) Comments by other users The account name here also indicates this NovaHawk 22:06, 15 March 2014 (UTC) I'm not aware of a specific reason why a checkuser is necessary. The policy says sockpuppets are accounts used for disrupting the community, ballot stuffing and block evasion. As far as I can tell, Nuff hasn't done any of these with the Nexus account, and as he is admitted it, I see no reason to CU. CJC95 (talk) 01:05, 16 March 2014 (UTC) Well if it is Nuff, he's deceived us into thinking that Nexus was a new, good, educated AFOL user who attends college, while if Nexus isn't Nuff and is only claiming to be, then he's deceiving us into thinking that Nexus is really a sockpuppet of a user who has been around much longer. While I have little doubt that Nexus is lying about being NuffSaid, it would be good to have certainty of the situation, and to have NuffSaid decide which account he wants to use primarily so that we know. --ToaMeiko (talk) 01:47, 16 March 2014 (UTC) I'm not seeing a valid reason to check here. Ajraddatz (talk) 03:30, 16 March 2014 (UTC) I'll also point out that NuffSaid has a long history of misusing multiple accounts for both deceiving other users, block evasion, and other policy violations. I think that since he's claiming to already have at least one sockpuppet on Brickimedia, it's a perfectly good reason to check for any others before he causes any issues and violates polices here. --ToaMeiko (talk) 03:35, 16 March 2014 (UTC) "Sockpuppetry refers to a user creating multiple accounts and using them on the same wiki for the purposes of disrupting the community. They can be used for "ballot stuffing" on straw polls (such as BOTM) and for block evasion." - Give us some proof of him disrupting or ballot stuffing, or planning to disrupt or ballot stuff, or there is no valid reason to checkuser. As far as I see it, checkusering now would not be considered warranted under Brickipedia:CheckUser policy. CJC95 (talk) 12:12, 16 March 2014 (UTC) Deceiving an entire community isn't disruptive? As it is I could just merge the two accounts as a sysadmin since they claim to be the same person, but I'd rather make sure they are the same person first and that one of them isn't just lying (which might I remind you, Nuff has a tendency to do). --ToaMeiko (talk) 22:34, 16 March 2014 (UTC) Doesn't really make a difference at all now. User requested an account merge which warranted me to confirm they were owned by the same user through a CheckUser check on meta. --ToaMeiko (talk) 22:48, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Keeffe10

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Suspected sockpuppets Dreezydre (talk - contribs - blocks - logs - cu - block) The user created an account and joined chat immediately after Keeffe10 vandalised the chat ban appeals page. Seeing as Keeffe10 had just visited the CBA page, it leads me to believe that the user was looking to re-enter chat, since BP:CBA is linked on the message that appears to a user when they try joining chat but are banned from it. Upon joining, Dreezydre had a decent understanding of users and acted similarly to how Keeffe10 had acted in the past. The user randomly said "xXx_w33d_pr0duct1ons[HD]" in chat, which upon Google searching brings up various online profiles, which look very similar to profiles that would belong to Keeffe10, such as that they share the same profile pictures that Keeffe10 has used in the past. A CheckUser investigation of this user should be conducted, as I suspect this user is using a sockpuppet to avoid a chat ban. --ToaMeiko (talk) 03:13, 22 February 2014 (UTC) Comments by other users Seems suspiciously like him, and most likely is. As BFN has told me "we aren't big enough to get new trolls" --TheNightingale 03:16, 22 February 2014 (UTC) Confirmed - Keeffe10 and Dreezydre are run by the same computer at least, with an IP and XFF match. I don't like having these requests in public, but if others are OK with them then I am too. I won't be posting the IP though. Ajraddatz (talk) 18:57, 22 February 2014 (UTC) Per Ajr on requests in public. CJC95 (talk) 20:32, 22 February 2014 (UTC) I think it's better to have them in public so that the community knows that it is being conducted (since they wouldn't know on an admin wiki post). IPs don't need to be shared though, since our CU policy says against it. --ToaMeiko (talk) 20:42, 22 February 2014 (UTC)