Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Finealt/Archive

< Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations | Finealt


Finealt

15 March 2014
edit
Suspected sockpuppets

Both editors seem to repost lists of programs shown in Australia and New Zealand. Borderline WP:DUCK. buffbills7701 19:54, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adding User:Wiki Channel Neteork. buffbills7701 19:59, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Double-checked WCN's contributions, and found only one edit in common with the others. My sincere apologies to WCN. buffbills7701 11:08, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can anyone tell me how the connection to Finealt and Keenan was made? From what I saw Keenan was trying to add cruft to articles while Finealt was trying to over-remove sourced info. Is this an odd 'double bad-hand' situation? Nate • (chatter) 03:30, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users
edit

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit
​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:04, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
20 April 2014
edit
Suspected sockpuppets

This is very obviously the return of Finealt (talk · contribs) and Keenan202 under yet another new username. User's only contribs outside of misdirecting welcome template drops to new users (as usual with 'new users', how do they know how to welcome new users) have been to add deletion notices to children's network articles for a 13-article AfD dealing with nominations attempted by Finealt in the past, and content removal from children's networks and articles as cruft and also restoring some of Finealt's inappropriate and undiscussed pagemoves. CheckUser requested. Nate • (chatter) 16:22, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

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

It should perhaps be noted that following a further unsuccessful AFD nomination of a bunch of pages, Werearrwe has again updated the AFD page with a bogus closure notice falsely presenting the result as delete [[1]], then went on to redirect all the articles to the inappropriate page List of programs broadcast by Cartoon Network, and contributed to this SPI by adding in User:Ahecht to the list of names above,[[2]] as well as taking the time to inform Ahecht of this on their talk page [[3]]. Fairly hard to assume good faith from this editor in the face of such familiar behaviour. Bonusballs (talk) 14:57, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Bonusballs, I was wondering why Werearrwe had given me a barnstar for something I hadn't done and then nominated me at SPI, but I wasn't aware of the other activities of that editor. It is true that I have proposed (unsuccessfully) some of the same articles for deletion and have performed bold page moves as part of a BRD cycle, but I have no meat- or sock-puppet affiliation. I am by no means a perfect wikipedian, but I am not a sock of either of these two as my long and varied edit history shows. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:27, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Removed; I absolutely didn't have any intent to place you in this SPI. Nate • (chatter) 19:18, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit
26 April 2014
edit
Suspected sockpuppets


This is a for-the-record report only as both users were already indeffed earlier in the month, but all signs point to Finealt; content removal without consensus on the usual 'list of (foreign children's network) shows', and when caught lashes out in unblock notices and creates nonsense pages. A look at both of these editor's edit histories should be considered when trying to find a Finealt/Kennan sock. Nate • (chatter) 19:23, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

172.56.29.62 is reported here for yet another reversion of trivia we're already trying to finesse into better proses wholesale on List of Sam & Cat episodes, one of their constant _targets. Nate • (chatter) 20:04, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New report for 96.26.122.181; also blanking content on the Sam and Cat list. Nate • (chatter) 20:58, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

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


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


Claims to be from Singapore, but after making one good edit, proceeded on the same deletion spree as the past socks of Finealt. Removal of information from List of Sam & Cat episodes, then two more AfD noms for List of programs broadcast by Cartoon Network and yet again a chain of international List of Nickelodeon programs on various international networks. Nobody knows the AfD process this fast, and all signs easily point once again to Finealt/Kennan/whatever. Nate • (chatter) 01:36, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

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

I too noticed the peculiarity of Sefcik's edits and their questionable setup: Account created on May 1st. 1st edit introduced grammatical error. 2nd and 3rd edit blanked international broadcast sections citing WP:TVINTL, which would be a peculiar niche fact for a new editor to know. There were 7 subsequent edits to their own user page on May 5th, which would bring them up to 10 edits, and they would be autoconfirmed by that point. AfDs are pretty ballsy for a new user. In these edits the user nominates List of programs broadcast by Cartoon Network for deletion, adding dozens of other articles to their list of "List of" in need of deletion. I ain't Dr. Phil, but I speculate that the user is trying to teach the community a lesson about hypocrisy or something. Why does the List of...Cartoon Network article get to survive if other articles are cut? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:53, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Add also Dongbeom (talk · contribs) because of same edits to same pages. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:26, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delantisco's edits couldn't be a clearer example of WP:DUCK - although interestingly at List of programs broadcast by Disney Channel (Latin America) they appear to be trying to blank a page originally created by Keenan202, which I think others have previously identified as yet another sock of this editor? Bonusballs (talk) 18:39, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit

  Administrator note Looking at the editing history of various accounts, I found evidence which left me in no doubt that Sefcik is a sockpuppet, so I have blocked the account. However, in view of the editor's history of sockpuppetry, I am requesting a checkuser in case of sleepers or other as yet undetected socks. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:21, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

25 February 2015
edit
Suspected sockpuppets

More poorly written content about Dan vs. here Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:18, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit
26 February 2015
edit
Suspected sockpuppets

Suggesting page moves related to cartoon channels. See [4].

Also the user EvergreenFir 2.0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was created a bit ago today. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:59, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ponyo: Looks like my gut was right. Feel free to move this to the correct case file. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:46, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit
11 March 2015
edit
Suspected sockpuppets


See user contributions - having established a nonsensical user:talk page and then waited 10 days, within 5 minutes deleted/redirected large numbers of international TV articles to articles covering their (unrelated, non-specific) US parent, and AFD-nommed others, in an action replay of previous long-running vandalism by the Finealt sockmaster account. Bonusballs (talk) 17:40, 11 March 2015 (UTC) Bonusballs (talk) 17:40, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

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

Revelation: JamesNo12 haves edits smilar to Finealt, i just watched his contributions. 190.159.209.123 (talk) 00:39, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Please, i sugesting a indefinite block for this sock account, please, block him, and also, dont let this sock to lie. 181.48.43.209 (talk) 21:22, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit
Basically their edits are identical - each completely removes all content in an article and instead replaces it with a redirect to the US parent, on the false assumption that the channels are the same and have no differences between them, and that the US article includes relevant or appropriate detail of the international channel, which they don't. Examples are [[5]] and [[6]], or [[7]] and [[8]]. It's really the edit history of both editors, rather than isolated diffs, which makes it clear that this is the same user - it's exactly the same rapid-fire one-person war against international kids channel articles. Impossible to believe that a new user, having waited the required 10 days to be auto confirmed, has suddenly becomes an expert on wikipedia policy and has properly and independently considered all those edits in that time, and then proceeds to execute them all in a matter of minutes. I believe that WP:DUCK applies. Bonusballs (talk) 10:04, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I totally agree with Bonusballs. This is pure DUCK. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:07, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Clerk note: I agree. Anna Frodesiak, why don't you block him if it's a duck? Vanjagenije (talk) 10:12, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:31, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
30 March 2015
edit
Suspected sockpuppets

  Looks like a duck to me The same old 'I would really like to merge these international networks' line, such as this message on my talk page which basically spells out their MO and screams 'I'm Finealt back again!', then to the usual redirect without discussion attempt. Nate • (chatter) 01:12, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And already blocked...thanks Gogo Dodo (talk · contribs)! Nate • (chatter) 01:13, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
NickToon Sr. added to this list too; Gogo blocked and tagged them right away also. Can't wait to see "NickToon XLV" eventually on this one. Nate • (chatter) 01:22, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And now, ‎Señor NickToon...I expect we'll be onto Papua New Guinean 'Mr.' equivalents by the end of the night for this sad sock spurt. Nate • (chatter) 01:29, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Duck Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:20, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just added Hshxksbiabxisbidhw for the record. DUCK redirecting of pages. Already blocked. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:23, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

duck EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:36, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit
  • Blocked, tagged, reverted. And the ones I picked up myself:
-- Gogo Dodo (talk) 01:38, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
02 April 2015
edit
Suspected sockpuppets


Report only; this new account ramped right back up with the same old 'all Disney Junior networks overseas are merging into one' edits, but this time with the addition of ABC Family-related detritus with the same type of argument, despite shows on their schedules carried by other networks in other markets. Already blocked; report only to trace this new naming pattern, whatever it is, along with an unblock claim that they're just a rabid Finealt/Keenan fan. Nate • (chatter) 13:06, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit

Mike V • Talk 17:58, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

02 May 2015
edit
Suspected sockpuppets

In the span of 2 days, this user has moved the same page 9 times. [9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17]. Finealt has also edited this page here. Finealt was known for excessive and disruptive article moves. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:08, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit
@Callanecc: Any updates? Thanks, Mike V • Talk 18:31, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
20 May 2015
edit
Suspected sockpuppets

Moving channel pages, especially related to cartoons, is Finealt's MO. User is known to have sleepers. Asking for CU. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:27, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

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

Oh how strange. Well the user is indefed now so I guess this can just be closedwishful thinking apparently... not sure why I thought that blocked for 48 hours. Might be worth a second look? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:43, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I reported the user to ANI for persistent disruptive page moves, which resulted in a 48 hour block. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:49, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Anna Frodesiak That was a great, well-written plea to the editor. Fantastic! I am skeptical about this vandal, as he was confirmed as tied to Dcbanners, who by all other metrics was a conscientious Television editor who tended to edit on the mark. I'd even nominated him for Editor of the Week because he'd been doing such spot-on editing, including crap that nobody wants to touch, like massive table reformatting, digging up ratings references, etc. It's hard to believe that someone who seems committed to super constructive edits could secretly be running a childish destruction campaign, so it's hard to anticipate any long-term constructive benefit if we were to buy the "I'll be good for six-months" plea. Deeds before words. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 08:25, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The behaviour of this user is interesting - inappropriate renaming, moving and redirecting European Cartoon Network-based articles over to Middle East & Africa variants. A similar article was lost recently when List of programmes broadcast by Cartoon Network UK & Ireland was deleted since it was apparently a redirect to deleted page Cartoon Network (Middle East & Africa) - yet the UK & Ireland, like other European territories, is nowhere near the Middle East & Africa and so such a redirect would never have been legitimate. Since the page is now deleted, though, there seems no obvious way to identify which user originally made these redirects and if they too are or were exhibiting a similar pattern of vandalism. A shame that legitimate articles are getting lost in the crossfire of this nonsense, though. Bonusballs (talk) 08:53, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
EDIT: Ah, I see that this user has in fact re-created the deleted MEA page (although not the UK page) and filled it with unrelated cruft and nonsense about channels in different territories, talking about 'demergrers' and trying to create a link that's just not there. I'm certain that looking into the histories of these articles will reveal other usernames and/or the sockmaster. Bonusballs (talk) 09:10, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Was this article at any time named Cartoon Network Europe? I saw the Kosi account move and re-move an article a bunch of times and I think it wound up at Cartoon Network (Middle East & Africa). I mentioned to Geraldo Perez that there was some weirdness with that article anyway, since in 2014 it used to be about Cartoon Network Europe** then the focus had shifted** and then the focus was lost**. It was unclear through the (of course) inadequately prose whether some major change had occurred at CN Europe to warrant an expansion into Middle-East and Africa. So I don't know about that. (** Diffs won't work as the article has been deleted, but maybe admins could check?) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 09:18, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Formerly being Cartoon Network Europe is a possibility, certainly, although I doubt if the original 'List of programmes' article would have been European. It's almost impossible to unpick this mess - if the intention was to damage all the articles such that people would want to delete the lot and start again, then Kosi has certainly succeeded. Bonusballs (talk) 09:39, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit
  • I see no point to repeating the CU. However, you're welcome to ask the checkuser who performed it, Callanecc.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:33, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Generally speaking, when a check is performed the CU looks for sleeper accounts at the same time. (If you check the IP(s), you'll see all the users/IP(s) who have made logged actions under that address. The same goes for a range check.) I've reviewed the CU logs from Callanecc's check and it looks like he took appropriate steps to look for any additional accounts. With the listed account blocked indefinitely, I don't think there is much more to do here. I'll be closing this case now. Mike V • Talk 20:30, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

28 March 2016

edit
Suspected sockpuppets

Finealt's main MO is to edit on cartoon-related pages, especially in Asia and Oceania. Fanofbolders is editing on various Cartoon Network regional pages similar to past socks (e.g. Special:Contributions/JamesNo12). Both Fanofbfolders and Special:Contributions/MLPDisney_XD have editing on HBO pages too. Fanofbfolders' editing is identical to Narozjotea Santimoere's: same page types, same edit summary style, use of minor editing tag. The Narozjotea Santimoere account is more closely linked to Finealt's MO of editing on pages like Cartoon Network (Southeast Asia). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:16, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanjagenije: Looking more into the diffs, the only evidence I have is circumstantial. Given that, I retract the investigation request. Jumped the gun on this one. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:29, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

edit

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. Pinging Cyphoidbomb since I did discuss this with them earlier. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:17, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

edit
  •   Additional information needed - @EvergreenFir: In order to facilitate and expedite your request, please provide diffs to support your case. Please give two or more diffs meeting the following format:
  1. At least one diff is from the sockmaster (or an account already blocked as a confirmed sockpuppet of the sockmaster), showing the behaviour characteristic of the sockmaster.
  2. At least one diff per suspected sockpuppet, showing the suspected sockpuppet emulating the behaviour of the sockmaster given in the first diff.
  3. In situations where it is not immediately obvious from the diffs what the characteristic behaviour is, a short explanation must be provided. Around one sentence is enough for this. Vanjagenije (talk) 12:26, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Finealt/Archive&oldid=1138670757"
  NODES
chat 14
Community 1
HOME 1
Interesting 2
Intern 8
languages 2
Note 8
os 29
Users 29