Misplaced Pages

:Sockpuppet investigations/Djmex9205/Archive: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations | Djmex9205 Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 21:16, 1 October 2014 editMeters (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers172,911 editsm Reverted edits by I AM WILDEDIT (talk) to last version by Meters← Previous edit Revision as of 21:18, 1 October 2014 edit undoI AM WILDEDIT (talk | contribs)40 edits Undid revision 627871430 by Meters (talk) I WILL CASE A FILE IF YOU DON'T STOPNext edit →
Line 22: Line 22:


I realize the case is not that strong because I have only established one common link (adding an age limit of 10 to the PG rating) between the three accounts and the IPs, but the accounts hardly ever edit outside of age rating articles and all edits revolve around adding their own interpretations to the descriptions. There are some other connections though: I realize the case is not that strong because I have only established one common link (adding an age limit of 10 to the PG rating) between the three accounts and the IPs, but the accounts hardly ever edit outside of age rating articles and all edits revolve around adding their own interpretations to the descriptions. There are some other connections though:

* The IPs are both New York based and with Verizon Online. See and .


* At ] I explained that the PG rating does not carry an age limit along with sources, and this was . He did at ] too. * At ] I explained that the PG rating does not carry an age limit along with sources, and this was . He did at ] too.

Revision as of 21:18, 1 October 2014


Djmex9205

Djmex9205 (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

06 August 2014
Suspected sockpuppets

This is a long-running case that started at Motion picture rating system. At that article User:Djmex9205 (, , , , , , ) and a User:96.232.82.46 (, , ) persistently edited against source, altering the comparison table to add an age recommendation of "10" to the PG rating in the US entry. These edits were intermingled with each other during the first half of July. It is difficult to tell what the editors are doing by just comparing the code, but if you compare the PG rating in the US entry at the correct version you can see they are coding in an age limit for the PG rating. On July 17, a newly SPA account User:RazorShotter showed up and also started to code the same age limit into the table: . Administrator User:Dennis Brown believed there was strong behavorial evidence of sock activity and on July 19 semi-protected the article and blocked both Djmex9205 and RazorShotter: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive847#Continuation of disruptive activity by a SPA account. Job done.

However, an IP with a very similar MO has started a campaign of disruptive activity at Motion Picture Association of America film rating system. User:96.246.139.135 (, , , , , , ) has persistently added an age recommendation of "10" to the PG rating. In addition, a newly registered editor in the last few days, User:BasicallyIdowrk also installed the same wording: . After the article was semi-protected yesterday by User:Rjd0060, BasicallyIdowrk created a facsimile of the article at MPAA information, where of course the PG rating carries an age limit of "10".

I realize the case is not that strong because I have only established one common link (adding an age limit of 10 to the PG rating) between the three accounts and the IPs, but the accounts hardly ever edit outside of age rating articles and all edits revolve around adding their own interpretations to the descriptions. There are some other connections though:

I appreciate the the evidence is mainly circumstantial, but I think the behavioral evidence is compelling, expecially considering these accounts are newly registered and entirely focused on one area. Betty Logan (talk) 15:26, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

UPDATE: A newly registered account today, User:CRAZYMAN39 also deleted my comments at Talk:Motion Picture Association of America film rating system after I restored them. He also vandalised Template:An3-notice/doc. The account was shut down pretty fast by User:Bbb23 but I am recording here since I believe it strengthens the argument for an IP check. Betty Logan (talk) 20:19, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

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

 Clerk endorsed. My attention was attracted to this report by the one filed by Betty at WP:AN3. Even before I looked at this report, I could see a behavioral relationship between BasicallyIdowrk and the IP (now blocked each for one month). One of CRAZYMAN's edits was identical to BasiccalyIdowrk's, and the other was vandalizing the documentation of an AN template (attacking Betty in the vandalism). Anyway, the behavioral similarities are pretty obvious, although the master's edits are a more blatantly vandalistic/aggressive than some of the puppets. I haven't tagged any of the accounts because I would like a CU to confirm things.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:29, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

24 August 2014
Suspected sockpuppets


Djmex9205 is an editor who has utilised multiple sock accounts to disrupt the Motion Picture Association of America, Motion Picture Association of America film rating system and the Motion picture rating system articles. The latter two articles have both been semi-protected in recent weeks due to this disruptive activity. The editors MO as explained in the previous case is mainly changing the ages in the ratings. Since the last case, administrator Bbb23 also tagged and blocked three suspected sockpuppets: RealisticMan28, Mini Ladd, AceOnSpace; the first two were created and blocked on August 14 while the latter was created on the 15th and blocked on the 16th. A new new acount, H2O amazing was created on the 17th and has targeted the same three articles. The latest account also edited List of Call of Duty characters (which was duly reverted by a clubot for vandalism), which was also targeted by a previous sock BasicallyIdowrk. The H2O amazing account has started making the same erroneous edits such as this one, making alterations to the age ratings which are inconsistent with the source. Even though the first three accounts are already on a block I have included them here so they cane be confirmed. The H2O amazing account is still live and needs to be dealt with. Betty Logan (talk) 04:34, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

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

 Clerk note: This is way too obvious to require a CU to confirm. New account indeffed and tagged. I'll clean up some of the account's edits. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:05, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Djmex9205/Archive: Difference between revisions Add topic