Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Architect 134/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations | Architect 134

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sro23 (talk | contribs) at 22:09, 25 July 2024 (Archiving case section from w:en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Architect 134 (using spihelper.js)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Architect 134

Architect 134 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Older archives were moved to an archive of the archive because of the page size and are listed below:

24 August 2021

Suspected sockpuppets

Collapsing list of socks. Mz7 (talk) 03:34, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More of the same, all stale. gnu57 05:14, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith: Two ways:

A134 often revives old no-edit sleepers: for instance, Fecasltain, which he started using earlier today, was created in April 2020. gnu57 14:21, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

@RoySmith: could you request global locks for the socks? JavaHurricane 16:43, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I've done the work. JavaHurricane 16:55, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • None of these accounts have any contributions. Closing. Bbb23 (talk) 12:46, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  On hold - @Genericusername57: before this gets consigned to the dustbin of history, I gotta ask: how did you come up with this list of 56 accounts that have never edited, and what made you think they're Architect socks? -- RoySmith (talk) 13:22, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • FWIW, I'm confident that these are A134 socks, due to both the naming patterns and the timing. These socks are revived on a regular basis (and subsequently confirmed to A134). Genericusername57's method is a reliable one. All should be blocked, and for their username alone. If no one gets there before me, I'll do it. -- zzuuzz (talk) 14:49, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blocking everybody sans tags per Genericusername57 and zzuuzz. And, Genericusername57 you deserve some kind of barnstar for subjecting yourself to this sort of abuse for an hour. Please spend the rest of your day doing something more enjoyable. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:35, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    "Failed to block StiknySmegterd: nosuchuser". I assume there was some typo there. I'm going to (re) close this, but if you figure out what it was supposed to be, ping me and I'll be happy to take care of it. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:37, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

29 August 2021

Suspected sockpuppets

Logging for the record, likely another LTA/sockmaster but unaware currently. Edits at Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not therapy ~TNT (she/they • talk) 00:09, 29 August 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

  • We can add Ethanyounger and Brownugget to this batch. I'd go with Genericusername57's guess. There's a few things saying this is probably A134, even though some of the footprint is different. To give one example, Brownugget's date of creation is very close to (or probably the same as) some recently reported A134 socks. -- zzuuzz (talk) 23:51, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

05 September 2021

Suspected sockpuppets

Vetocrux is an Architect 134 sleeper sock. I spotted it back in January then forgot about it. Now the account is behaving the same way as the most recent batch of blocked socks.

Typicalneurotypical, Sfincturd, and Functer are other obvious throwaway socks of his. (Sfincturd was spamming "thanks" notifications a few weeks ago.) gnu57 18:26, 5 September 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

Yes, that's them. A couple of extra accounts can be found in my blocking log.  Blocked without tags. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:59, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

19 March 2022

Suspected sockpuppets

CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 06:27, 19 March 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

Filing for posterity, all  Confirmed. Pretty sure its some LTA, but idk whom. If a clerk has more clue than I do, they're welcome to do the paperwork to put this SPI in the right place :) CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 06:27, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

24 July 2022

Suspected sockpuppets

Already CU-blocked some of them; others are blocked otherwise. Two of them were attempted accounts. Drmies (talk) 00:54, 24 July 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

02 August 2022

Suspected sockpuppets

Pro-forma. Case split from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Мадина Омарова and relevant CU / Admin comments copied from there. Jack Frost (talk) 21:04, 2 August 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

As a second group,

are all  Confirmed to each other, but ostensibly Red X Unrelated to the first group. Our proxy detection tools are drawing a blank on the IPv6 /128 they're all using. My inclination would be to assume our proxy tools are just not perfect. A couple of other random thoughts, however. One is that it's less common to see proxies on IPv6 than on v4. The other is that this geolocates to a city which is not someplace you would expect to see people using the Cyrillic alphabet. @Blablubbs: I'll leave the blocking and tagging to you. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:07, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

05 April 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

This would seem to fit the pattern of some of the more persistent A134 socks (e.g. Krillzyx): sleeper-ish tendencies and a strong interest in counter-vandalism, CSD, AfD, etc. More importantly, there's a lot of the subtle trolling that typifies this LTA: creating Wikipedia:Featured articles gain greater online traction (look at the acronym) is one example, and the stuff discussed at the bottom of Shawn Teller's talk page is another. There's also a similarity with a number of previous accounts that I'd prefer not to discuss publicly for BEANS reasons (happy to email if anyone's curious). I think there's at least enough here to run a check—there should be data on cu-wiki to compare with. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:16, 5 April 2023 (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

07 July 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

A134 has been stirring up drama in the gender topic area lately. (See Knitesmire (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), Addymarx (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), and Reidbeyer (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)). He created this sleeper sock in 2021, resurrected it yesterday, ran through TWA to get autoconfirmed, then started trolling at Woman. I am requesting Checkuser to look for more sleeper accounts. gnu57 02:50, 7 July 2023 (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

08 July 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

Another obvious sock, just like the last one. gnu57 02:48, 8 July 2023 (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

  • Yep, that's Architect – Courcelles beat me to the block. I did block another 100 or so yesterday, and another one just now, but they're hardly worth listing. Closing. --Blablubbs (talk) 16:52, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09 July 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

The Nov. 2021 registration date matches that of previous socks, as does the trolling-adjacent behavior in the GENSEX area (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Abuse by user 'A socialist trans Girl' and elsewhere (Draft:Amerauseurasica; Commons; sandbox history). Happy to go into more detail if necessary. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:13, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

From my involvement in that noticeboard drama, my impression was that she was far more trolled than trolling. I'd be surprised if the accounts are connected. There is the overlap in subject areas but the blatant trolling of, say, Mistyjee is absent here. I guess the checkuser will reveal the truth. --DanielRigal (talk) 03:32, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Architect 134 socks come in several flavors. Most are just throwaways, but a few (Shawn Teller was a recent one) troll in a somewhat less obvious manner. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:43, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

I don't think this is A134. The technical data is a bit weirdly ambiguous, as us checkusers like to say, but it's not something A134 generally looks like, so I'm going to say it's technically unlikely to be A134. I'll ping Blablubbs in case they want to take a look. If there is further evidence, now would be a good time. -- zzuuzz (talk) 03:52, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

01 October 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

No thanks, I have about 1500 sleeper accounts. I’ll just use one of them and a new IP. Buckrune (talk) 2:02 pm, Today (UTC−4) Valereee (talk) 20:29, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

probably this NSFW post is another sock.

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 December 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

Adding "dastardly" to character descriptions [1] [2] [3] [4]. Changing "built" to "erected" [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] . Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:06, 26 December 2023 (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 March 2024

Suspected sockpuppets

The only edit by this account should justify it. I was quite pissed at how egregious the accusation was. I don’t know a master so I put it here. I’m on an iPhone so making a report was difficult. Noah, AATalk 02:01, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

also on phone but here's another similar diff. [10] Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 06:58, 24 March 2024 (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

24 March 2024

Suspected sockpuppets

See WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Idk. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 03:55, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[11] is similar. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 06:57, 24 March 2024 (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

26 May 2024

Suspected sockpuppets

Both are giving dangerously wrong/trollish responses at the Teahouse as new users: Pinchedloaf Kojavak. Curious that Pinchedloaf showed up 6 months to the day after Kojavak last edited. Kojavak is likely stale, but in case someone did run a check and left some clues in the CU log I'm still requesting a check. A check on the new account may still be justified because it seems like this user made extra sure that their CU data would be deleted. Jasper Deng (talk) 06:14, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mz7: who put the sock under a CU block for a more recent master.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:29, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
  • I also sent an email to WP:RFO reporting this edit by Pinchedloaf, where they advised a new TeaHouse editor "To accurately answer your question, we would first need your full legal name and address of current residence, and employer’s contact information. It is also recommended that you disclose your IP address for security purposes."--Gronk Oz (talk) 07:55, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

30 June 2024

Suspected sockpuppets

Sleeper account, gamed AC, straight to A134 'topics'. The userbox is used by a bunch of previous A134 accounts. CU for any more. Pahunkat (talk) 03:31, 30 June 2024 (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

02 July 2024

Suspected sockpuppets

After seeing User:Zzuuzz's block on User:Mitrex05 mentioning 'LTA/A134' in the block reason, it reminded me strongly of what happened over at User:Obsidian Soul recently, where a new account 'User:Murmayo' gamed autoconfirmed (by placing McDonald's "Filet-o-fish" templates on their user page and user talk page (see diff 1 and diff 2, compare it to diff 3 and diff 4)), to add some inflammatory "retired" notice on User:Obsidian Soul's user page (diff, compare it to this diff). Both of these accounts were created in late 2021 too. — AP 499D25 (talk) 00:29, 2 July 2024 (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

25 July 2024

Suspected sockpuppets

Not much to go on but the edits to Ed, Edd n Eddy this [[12]] 'zany hijinks'. 'Erected' here [[13]] and [[14]]

Obviously there are a large amount of socks to look through so I haven't noticed any other crossover.

User has been blocked already for other reasons. Knitsey (talk) 00:18, 25 July 2024 (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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Architect_134/Archive&oldid=1236659149"